Recent comments in /f/history

submittedanonymously t1_j13tl2s wrote

Yo… that’s awesome. Thanks for the idea!

I’m too broke and penniless now to do it, but I will get to it right when I’m old enough to die broke and penniless… shit

(Joke aside, that would be very cool to do and I’m going ti look into it further)

54

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13sxwr wrote

correct, entirely possible because the ship and sanitary canal connect the two seperate watersheds in 1900. Before that, there was not a navigable connection between the chicago and the des plaines.

edit: actually the calumet canal connects the south branch to the des plaines river, I think, but I know less about it, other

2

ClapAlongChorus t1_j13rz9a wrote

hey Obiwan, I think you're misreading the definition of navigable. Up until 1900 with the completion of the of the chicago ship and sanitary canal, there was no connection between the Des Plaines / Illinois River and the Chicago River / Lake Michigan.

Is the divide between the two watersheds very low in elevation? Yes. Was the Chicagoland area a low swamp where travelers often picked up their canoe to get from one waterway to the other? Yes. Could you travel in a boat, without getting out of the boat, with water under the entire boat enough to keep the boat floating, from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines / Illinois River system? Nope. That is why chicago played engineer with the chicago river.

13

Lamb_or_Beast t1_j13oymb wrote

You seem confused though, lake nipigon is not further from where it drains (out the st Lawrence into North Atlantic); that lake does not drain out the gulf so saying it’s further from the gulf is like comparing apples to bananas. Also, from that point you cannot navigate through natural waterways out to the ocean anyway, you need to use canals to get past Niagara Falls (and possible a few other points? Unsure about that). So no matter what it is not as far…not even close actually.

12

dittybopper_05H t1_j13mwib wrote

Ironically, though, the StG-44 is about 1 or 2 lbs heavier than an M-1 Garand. It doesn't *LOOK* like it, you'd think the Garand is heavier just looking at it, but it's not.

The other thing to consider is that the StG-44 is, essentially, a disposable gun. It's made largely of stampings, and they will wear out much quicker than a Garand. You can put tens of thousands of rounds through an M-1 with no difficulty, but a Sturmgewehr will wear out long before that. Plus, it's more prone to being damaged than an M-1.

But I think perhaps the biggest reason why is because the M-1 was a battle-proven platform which the US literally had millions of them in stock. Completely switching over from that to a new gun with new ammo (.30'06 Kurz?) would have been seen as an unnecessary waste of money.

6

drunkenknight9 t1_j13mtnj wrote

Yes. There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what this means so I'll try to clarify. This is the furthest boat trip you can take along natural waterways from the ocean to a point inland without crossing land or using a canal. Taking a boat all the way from the Gulf of Mexico, up the Mississippi, up the Missouri, and into Montana is a very far boat ride. You cannot do this further anywhere else on Earth without using a canal or taking your boat over land. I honestly didn't think this was such a confusing concept but apparently people think it is.

159