Hello!

As part of a school project, I am expected to choose an area of my interest in History and to probe it. I have been really fascinated by military aviation history, so I reckon that doing a study of two planes or conflicts would be something I will enjoy and thus do well.

I wanted to ask whether anyone had any books, memoirs or other resources related to aviation strategy in WW2 and analysis of certain planes (Spitfire vs BF-109?) or the role of aircrafts at the Battle of Britain.

The general topic is: Advancements in aircraft development technology and their impact on the nature of battle strategy and deployment

Thanks in advance!

So you see it often enough in fiction that it's a trope. Has something like this ever happened? Has a passenger with no piloting background ever successfully landed a commercial aircraft during an emergency, with or without help from ground-based controllers?

Every time I've seen a thread on this sub, it seems to say that the Sherman was at least equal to any German tank out there, if not better. If this is true, where did the popular conception of the poorly armored, under gunned, POS, come from?

According to Wikipedia, a spolas cuirass could be made of leather or woven linen. On the other hand, linothorax is said to be solely made of linen. Is there a clear distinction between the two?

I've often heard the reasoning the British hunted down the Tirpitz and Bismarck to such great lengths, including even hunting and destroying the ports they could possibly use for them in France (as in the St. Nazaire Raid) was because they feared the Tirpitz and Bismarck being used for Commerce Raiding.

My questions are, were the Germans actually intending to use them like this?

And would BBs have actually been effective under this usage?

Thanks in advance!

For those who do not know, Crusader Kings 2 is a video game about being noble dyansty in the middle ages, with all the intriege and (often literal) backstabbing that entails. One of it's features that was added in a DLC is the Chroniclers, which write down the epic deeds of your ruler and house, such as when you go to war, join a Crusade, or aquire a higher noble rank. However, in the quiet years of the Kingdom, between the Viking raids and the Dues Vults against the infidels, your Chronicler will add... interesting events. These include good harvests and Earthquakes to the sitings of giants, sea serpants, multiple suns, and dragons.

Crusader Kings 2 isn't a 100% realistic game. There was a massively ahistorical DLC pack that added an Aztec invasion that could happen over five hundred years before the Aztecs were even a thing. However, the developers at least have given historical accuracy the old college try when it doesn't conflict with the gameplay.

So, did the Medieval chroniclers clearly add events to spice things up in the dull years or outright supernatural events to their long tales?

Was it solely on the fact that there wew more Shermans or was there something else that gave the allies an edge over their enemies?

Was having a debate with some friends about the instinctual nature of sex. Is there any record in history to win humans understood that sexual intercourse led to the production and development of a infant? Or does this notion pre-date any sort of recorded history.

Hope someone knows military history could answer this question. Today in Russian military they are still using 122mm and 152mm caliber gun. I know these numbers came from Imperial Russian period and may related with smooth bore gun. How the Russian artilery weapons transit from smoothbore period to modern period?

to be clear, im not asking if muslims are bad or not. im talking about the hate towards muslim amongst some parts of humanity, justified or not. im wondering if it can be tracked in history? when , where, or why did this start?

“let all who fall into your hands be at your mercy, Gain a reputation like the Huns under Attila”.

I was researching old british newspaper for a history project for school (basically about biases in historical records) and I came across this quote, It sounds incredibly fake and I don't get anything when I google it and I'm wondering if anybody can confirm if this is fake or not?

Edit. Spelling.

*warrior

As the title says, I'm to do a research project on decolonization in Algeria. What I'm considering at the moment is examining how that decolonization has been portrayed in popular culture. I'm having trouble with finding material, though. I know I'm going to examine The Battle of Algiers movie from 1966, but I'm having a difficult time finding something comparable to use in a comparison/contrast that is specifically an example of pop culture rather than an academic treatment, and hoped someone might be able to suggest something or point me in the right direction.

Growing up in the South, I was fed this idea of "states' rights" as the justification of the Civil War. I no longer believe it was the reason the South seceded - I now believe the Confederacy was created to preserve the institution of slavery - but it occurred to me that I'm not sure what "states' rights" would even mean in this context. I had assumed it meant that the Southern states that seceded just didn't want the North in their business, but that seems kind of vague. It occurred to me that it could mean the state's individual right to secede. I believe the best way to proceed in a debate is to understand the other side, and in this case, I'm not sure what the crux of the other side's argument is.