|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 2, 2015 14:05:39 GMT
I'm not sure if times align, or the stars and stripes align, or anything, but it occurred to me that a fourth of july special might be a doable thing - and we have about the right lead time for doing one - next year or the year after. but what myths do we have that are a question of "could they" rather than "did they" we know George Washington could have chopped down his cherry tree - but could a man really throw a silver dollar across the potomac? the biography I read said it was part of a competition he participated in when he was young, and I would guess there are accounts that give enough detail to calculate the distance of the throw - and the size and weight of the coin should be available, too. but what other myths and legends of the time are testable? perhaps the legend of "old ironsides"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 2, 2015 18:44:41 GMT
I'd suspect that they might be wary of a 4th of July special, since this would only really be of interest to the US market. MB is, lest we forget, an internationally popular show. All of the other specials they've done, or at least those that I can think of, have at least some interest in other countries.
*Edit*
There is also the small matter that MB don't set the air dates for episodes, Discovery do. So Discovery would have to be willing to set aside a slot for such an episode at the beginning of July a year or more in advance and I'm not sure that Discovery plans specific air dates that far ahead. I'd suspect that Discovery might be wary of such an episode on those grounds; While they do have people in the production office at MB they have no more control over air dates than anyone else on the show.
Not that there is anything wrong with looking at myths from American history or specific to it, as they have done more than a few (such as dropping a penny off the Empire State building and Jimmy Hoffa both of which were in the first season.) I just wouldn't expect a special filled with such myths.
Throwing a coin over the Potomac would probably be a nice short myth that they could do, assuming that they can actually go there and try it for real. All they'd need to know would be where exactly on the river the throw was meant to have been done, from that they can look at old maps to calculate the exact width of the river.
Not trying to urinate on your idea. I do like the idea of looking at American (or British, Australian, Dutch etc) history for ideas. We just need to keep in mind that such myths need to be the kind that can be marketed worldwide.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 2, 2015 19:21:09 GMT
...hence why it might be a better idea to simply do a generic "historical myths" or "military myths" special; it'd get the job done, and Discovery could simply slot it for the 4th.
But one possible myth -
The Battle of Bunker Hill supposedly gave us the phrase "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!". Obviously, this would be a way to ensure that no shots are wasted, as the enemy would be close at hand. But how close do you have to be to see the whites of another person's eyes, and would the increased accuracy at this range compensate for the increased danger from enemy activity?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 3, 2015 0:09:35 GMT
...hence why it might be a better idea to simply do a generic "historical myths" or "military myths" special; it'd get the job done, and Discovery could simply slot it for the 4th. But one possible myth - The Battle of Bunker Hill supposedly gave us the phrase "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!". Obviously, this would be a way to ensure that no shots are wasted, as the enemy would be close at hand. But how close do you have to be to see the whites of another person's eyes, and would the increased accuracy at this range compensate for the increased danger from enemy activity? interesting thought. do you know what military maneuvers were going on at the time? I.E. colonials advancing, British advancing, one sneaking up on the other, etc? |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 3, 2015 22:08:07 GMT
IIRC, both sides were still doing the whole "line up shoulder-to-shoulder and fire" shtick.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2015 1:10:02 GMT
IIRC, both sides were still doing the whole "line up shoulder-to-shoulder and fire" shtick. yes, but at least one of them must have been moving. plate tectonics ain't THAT fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 4, 2015 2:05:07 GMT
IIRC, both sides were still doing the whole "line up shoulder-to-shoulder and fire" shtick. yes, but at least one of them must have been moving. plate tectonics ain't THAT fast. When dealing with an advancing force the tactic was to start volley fire at around 100 yards. The first discharge would stagger the attacker, the second stop them and the third cause them to retreat in disorder - something that was proven at Waterloo against the Imperial Guard. I'm not sure of the specific situation when the order was meant to have been given, although I somehow doubt you could see the whites of someones eyes at that distance and ordering fire at closer ranges would have been dangerous (unless firing from behind some form of fortification) as there would have been a good chance of the enemy being able to close and engage in close quarters battle before you could get off enough volleys to stop them. I'm going to guess that assuming the order was given, it was because the American troops were of such low quality they were unlikely to actually hit anything at that kind of range and/or would be unlikely to be able to reload quickly enough to bring enough fire onto attacking troops. In either case it would make sense to order the troops to hold fire until their opponents got closer to maximize the effect of the first volley which would be the most effective. (As the troops had the time to load carefully ahead of time). If you know hand-to-hand fighting was more or less assured because you couldn't stop the oncoming troops your next best plan is to do as much damage as possible just before contact is made. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2015 2:17:21 GMT
yes, but at least one of them must have been moving. plate tectonics ain't THAT fast. When dealing with an advancing force the tactic was to start volley fire at around 100 yards. The first discharge would stagger the attacker, the second stop them and the third cause them to retreat in disorder - something that was proven at Waterloo against the Imperial Guard. I'm not sure of the specific situation when the order was meant to have been given, although I somehow doubt you could see the whites of someones eyes at that distance and ordering fire at closer ranges would have been dangerous (unless firing from behind some form of fortification) as there would have been a good chance of the enemy being able to close and engage in close quarters battle before you could get off enough volleys to stop them. I'm going to guess that assuming the order was given, it was because the American troops were of such low quality they were unlikely to actually hit anything at that kind of range and/or would be unlikely to be able to reload quickly enough to bring enough fire onto attacking troops. In either case it would make sense to order the troops to hold fire until their opponents got closer to maximize the effect of the first volley which would be the most effective. (As the troops had the time to load carefully ahead of time). If you know hand-to-hand fighting was more or less assured because you couldn't stop the oncoming troops your next best plan is to do as much damage as possible just before contact is made. as I recall, the battle of bunker hill is one that has been polished a bit over the years. by which i mean it is presented as a battle that we won the war because of, but it may be that it is a battle we won in spite of. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 4, 2015 3:32:56 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_HillWiki is of the opinion that the order was likely given as a means of conserving ammunition; as it was, the main reason why the Colonists were forced to withdraw was, ultimately, that they did indeed begin running low on ammo, forcing an unwinnable hand-to-hand situation (as the British had bayonets). As far as the battle itself goes, while the British did push the Colonial forces back, their losses were far out of line with what the operation should have actually required. The British sustained over a thousand casualties (200+ dead, 800+ wounded), with a shockingly high number of the deceased being officers; in contrast, the Colonials only suffered 450 casualties, of which 140 were deaths. The effect of the battle was to disrupt the British military's operations until such time as the officers could be replaced and give the Colonials hope that they could simply grind the British down.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2015 3:48:39 GMT
anecdotally, the revolution was the turning point between firearms being considered auxiliary to the bayonet charge, and the bayonet charge being considered auxiliary to the firearms.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 4, 2015 3:57:37 GMT
anecdotally, the revolution was the turning point between firearms being considered auxiliary to the bayonet charge, and the bayonet charge being considered auxiliary to the firearms. Plus we had the Colonists making fairly effective use of snipers during the war. Not a lot of people realize that modern-day command & control technology is only a few decades old. Before that, controlling a military unit came down to "sight" and "sound". The "sound" part came from the drummers, fifers, and buglers playing specific notes and songs for specific moments and actions. The "sight" part came from both "having someone wave a tall banner that could be easily seen" and "having the officers wear gaudy outfits."* Problem was, those same gaudy outfits made the officers easier for both sides to spot on the battlefield. All a sniper had to do was pick out the fanciest guy in the unit and drop him. Given British Army tactical doctrine at the time, dropping an officer effectively disabled that officer's unit since in many cases IIRC the NCOs could do nothing more than act on the last given order. *Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes make a straw man out of an image depicting church founder Joseph Smith wearing a Napoleonic-style officer's uniform. What they don't realize, however, is that the city of Nauvoo, Illinois had the right to its own defensive militia as part of the city charter, and that as mayor of the town Joseph was also the de facto commanding officer. Although the uniform he was seen in is shockingly excessive by modern standards, by the standards of the 1840s it would have been right at home among any European military force. This is one of the many reasons why I find myself having to teach basic American history to critics of the church right alongside basic theology. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2015 4:04:54 GMT
anecdotally, the revolution was the turning point between firearms being considered auxiliary to the bayonet charge, and the bayonet charge being considered auxiliary to the firearms. Plus we had the Colonists making fairly effective use of snipers during the war. Not a lot of people realize that modern-day command & control technology is only a few decades old. Before that, controlling a military unit came down to "sight" and "sound". The "sound" part came from the drummers, fifers, and buglers playing specific notes and songs for specific moments and actions. The "sight" part came from both "having someone wave a tall banner that could be easily seen" and "having the officers wear gaudy outfits."* Problem was, those same gaudy outfits made the officers easier for both sides to spot on the battlefield. All a sniper had to do was pick out the fanciest guy in the unit and drop him. Given British Army tactical doctrine at the time, dropping an officer effectively disabled that officer's unit since in many cases IIRC the NCOs could do nothing more than act on the last given order. There was a lot of bad feeling about that, too. a common soldier killing an officer was considered a breach of class etiquette. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 5, 2015 9:51:42 GMT
Stepping sideways..... Fourth of July "Miffs". Deep Fried Turkey... Can someone please explain to this Limey why you feel boiling oil in a big kettle is a "good" (and even "safe") way to dunk a Turkey for cooking. What I see... a huge tank of oil atop a sort of barbecue fire and you put the turkey in... From This....  To This....  In less time that in takes to call TLW's Mob out?.... I have seen lowering the turkey in done via a 10ft barge pole I even saw this one done "live"... what a waste of a set of ladders?....  It doesnt, as the "n00b" thought, oil up the joint, but it does, as the n00b didnt think of, splash burning oil all over the plastic ratchet spacers inside the workings and melt them to useless, and burn off the plastic bungs, treads, and fry off the nylon rope he used. Twit. Also, can someone tell me why you decided that dunking Turkey in Oil improves the flavour?.. This is a cultural difference thing.... In UK, Turkey is an Xmas thing, you defrost your turkey as you get it home, start about a week before you need it, because they dont defrost in half an hour, or even half a day, then bung it in an oven, take it out and saw bits off because the thing is bigger than you thought and you cant shut the door, get a light under it, preferably about Midnight, because its so big its going to taker all day to cook, then eventually, three hours and half a bottle of whisky late, serve. Then spend two weeks trying to invent new ways to eat turkey, until you utter the immortal words, "Never again", and feed the rest to the dog. (Who will immediately run outside and throw up himself, because he has been hiding under that table for the last two weeks being fed turkey bits by the kids...) Or, you do as I do, get a reasonable size bird ordered in months in advance "fresh" from a reputable butcher, and cook it about two hours on a medium light until tender. And do that many weeks before Xmas, because on Xmas, we is having Beef. Family tradition, you can get an excellent bit of beef at reasonable prices just before Xmas, because everyone else is chasing Turkey... But deep fry the sod?... We (here in UK) dont get that idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 5, 2015 13:06:45 GMT
I don't think many Americans would get the idea of deep-frying turkey either.
I seem to recall something about deep frying a turkey in relation to MB. I'm not convinced that this is something they did, I *think* it may have been a myth posted on Discovery Boards about the deep friers on US Navy ships being able to deep fry a frozen turkey in a couple of minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 5, 2015 14:31:14 GMT
I don't think many Americans would get the idea of deep-frying turkey either. I seem to recall something about deep frying a turkey in relation to MB. I'm not convinced that this is something they did, I *think* it may have been a myth posted on Discovery Boards about the deep friers on US Navy ships being able to deep fry a frozen turkey in a couple of minutes. for my neighbors across the big pond: yes, people do deep fry turkeys, with a perceived sense that this improves them. and yes, people do it wrong and cause the oil to either be welled over through overfilling the cooker; or cause it to erupt by having too much water content on the turkey in the form of either being frozen, with ice on it, or just being too wet - and both result in a column of flame; which I think mythbusters might have addressed at some time in their run. - if not, I may be connecting it to their tests of trying to put out an oil fire by dumping water on it. now the traditional American way of cooking turkey sounds much like the traditional UK way of cooking turkey - which is why people consider all of the alternate methods to be better. but yes, I have had fried turkey, and it does cook the turkey a bit faster than the traditional method, so it dehydrates it less. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 6, 2015 1:52:26 GMT
I don't think many Americans would get the idea of deep-frying turkey either. I seem to recall something about deep frying a turkey in relation to MB. I'm not convinced that this is something they did, I *think* it may have been a myth posted on Discovery Boards about the deep friers on US Navy ships being able to deep fry a frozen turkey in a couple of minutes. Wasn't this some sort of holiday special episode? Anyway - 1. People will deep fry anything that they can get away with deep-frying. I actually once had deep-fried ice cream at a festival I went to; they took a ball of ice cream, rolled it in oats, and put it in the fryer until the oats browned. 2. If a turkey has been properly thawed, then there are no issues with lowering it into a deep fryer. If the turkey is still frozen, however, then (IIRC) the thermal shock of the cold bird hitting the hot oil causes the oil to shoot up like we see on video. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 6, 2015 7:04:02 GMT
They used a deep-fryer as a flash-over example if my memory serves me right.
Dehydrated turkey, as far as I know, is all down to what you cook it in.
If you dont stuff the bird with something, and dont coat it with something, yes its a little dry, which is also a sign on overcooked.
Deep Fried Bird, we get small pieces of bird and coat-and-fry that, chicken nuggets, KFC, and all that, just not the whole thing and served as a main meal.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 6, 2015 15:36:38 GMT
They used a deep-fryer as a flash-over example if my memory serves me right. Dehydrated turkey, as far as I know, is all down to what you cook it in. If you dont stuff the bird with something, and dont coat it with something, yes its a little dry, which is also a sign on overcooked. Deep Fried Bird, we get small pieces of bird and coat-and-fry that, chicken nuggets, KFC, and all that, just not the whole thing and served as a main meal. a big bird, properly deep fried (without coating) has a similar consistency to deep fried bird pieces; which most people agree is an improvement over the traditional means of producing desiccated bird. however, there are also means of cooking in an oven that do not destroy the edibility. the deep fried turkey trend has actually faded, again, due to the mess involved. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 6, 2015 16:05:38 GMT
Yeah - cooking fads tend to come and go.
I remember one time it used to be a fad to use soda or beer to flavor chicken. The recipe called for someone to pop open a can of the desired flavoring agent, slide the chicken on top of the can, and then put it in the oven.
The "logic" was that as the can heated up, it'd evaporate the liquid inside, at which point the evaporated liquid would flavor the meat.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 7, 2015 6:10:18 GMT
Yeah - cooking fads tend to come and go. I remember one time it used to be a fad to use soda or beer to flavor chicken. The recipe called for someone to pop open a can of the desired flavoring agent, slide the chicken on top of the can, and then put it in the oven. The "logic" was that as the can heated up, it'd evaporate the liquid inside, at which point the evaporated liquid would flavor the meat.  |
|
