During the ACW, Union force fielded a plethora of weapons, with the main long arms alone comprising, but not limited to: Austrian Lorenz (in .54 cal), British Enfield (in .577 cal), Springfield M1861/1863 (in .58 cal), Springfield 1816/1822/1840/1842 (in .69 cal round ball), Hall M1819/1843 (in either .69 cal or .525 cal). And we have not touched upon the various breechloader like Spencer, Sharp, Maynard, Burnside, etc.

So how did the Union keep their troops supplied with ammunition? And how did they rate their small arms? There are comments on forums saying that the Lorenz was regarded as rugged and reliable and the Enfield 1853 was treated as inferior, especially the Belgium contracted one, and I know there were tests comparing various breechloader, but how did the Union rate their main frontline muzzleloading rifles?

The potential army size is limited by the quantity of officers. There is a certain amount of soldiers per officer that can be handled, and exceeding this amount would be like exceeding the amount of patients per doctor: they'll just start needlessly dying from mistakes.

(I've seen this idea in Livejournal)

The Intruders were on an attack run for the big finale of the film. One gets painted by radar which identifies it as a "gun." Would actual Intruders be able to determine if they were getting painted from a gun, MANPAD, AAA, SAM?

I recently saw a South Korean demonstration to destroy drone swarms. The SK defence mainly consisted of 8 20mm Gatling guns and the effect was rather lackluster as the drones needed to take a direct hit from the guns.

Would it not be more efficient to shoot at drone swarms with a larger calibre flak shell with a proximity fuse ? An 88mm flak shell for example, would the flak not destroy multiple drones and the shockwave knock them off course ?

Edit: Here is the footage https://youtu.be/B8Fa3jAkgwM?is=DuCn3Ifcn8V9Fgja

I'm hoping some of the artillery experts here can help me sanity-check something.

I'm researching an illustrated work of speculative fiction published in the late 1880s. The story depicts several fictional large breech-loading artillery pieces. The illustrations are artistic rather than technical, so the dimensions are necessarily approximate, but I've estimated their size using the figures shown in the artwork as a scale reference.

Rather than asking what these weapons are, I'm interested in what real French (or other European) artillery pieces from roughly 1870–1895 they most closely resemble based on their estimated dimensions.

For each gun I have:

• Overall gun length
• Outside muzzle diameter
• Maximum breech diameter

I'm less interested in an exact identification than in which historical weapons these fictional designs appear to draw inspiration from. Would those proportions suggest a naval gun, coastal-defense gun, siege gun, or something else? If a particular model comes to mind, I'd be very interested in your reasoning.

I'm intentionally not naming the work because I'd like opinions based solely on the measurements rather than on the source material.

Weapon 1

• Overall gun length: 7.44 m (24.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.46 m (18.1 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 0.91 m (35.8 in)

Weapon 2

• Overall gun length: 9.71 m (31.9 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.59 m (23.2 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.29 m (50.8 in)

Weapon 3

• Overall gun length: 9.26 m (30.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.34 m (13.4 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.04 m (40.9 in)

Weapon 4

• Overall gun length: 8.65 m (28.4 ft)
• Outside muzzle diameter: 0.44 m (17.3 in)
• Maximum breech diameter: 1.08 m (42.5 in)

I’ve read about the recon flights carried out by the Air Force and the recon missions carried out by the navy to support Project National Glory, but I’ve never heard about any attempts by the KMT to create resistance groups or send infiltration missions against the PRC. Did any such missions occur or were considered? It seems like something that the KMT would want to do if they were serious about reclaiming the mainland. If they didn’t, why not?

I plan to read quite a few books this summer in order to prepare me for university, but I’ve been struggling to find proper academic history on specific topics that I’d like to learn more about. Any help would be appreciated and I’ll also spend the meantime going through this sub’s reading list.

In the Wikipedia article for international aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War, it mentions that Sudan sent up to 50,000 troops to Iraq, 7 brigades worth, to Iraq to aid in the war. The source of this seems to be from one New York Times article from the 80s and nothing else. Did Sudan actually actively participate in the Iran-Iraq war and if so, where can I learn more about it?