Miscellaneous desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 4

Hurtgen Forest

From a tactical POV, would the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest be considered an example of jungle warfare? 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not a jungle.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

08:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some similarities - Hürtgen Forest was very dense and rough (the article mentions the use of "tree burst" artilery fire, targeting trees to produce large amounts of dangerous splinters), and wet, poorly maintained roads were nearly impassable. However, there are also some differences: it took place in the European winter, so snow and cold were bigger threats than heat and mosquitoes. Smurrayinchester 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking more in terms of troop movements and other combat-related matters, not in terms of non-combat health hazards. 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific Iron Man scene on Youtube

I think this scene is from Iron Man 3 but my roommate says it's from Iron Man 1. Tony Stark has lost his suit, and so he has to build a bunch of homemade contraptions and infiltrate somewhere. The scene I'm specifically looking for is when he uses a Christmas Ornament that explodes and fills the guard's face with shards of glass. Can anyone find that scene? If I have to use Youtube's "link to a specific time in the middle of a video" that's okay. --Aabicus (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that scene, but it's definitely not from the first movie or the second. It could be from the third movie, but it's not mentioned in our plot synopsis. I haven't seen IM3 since it came out and it was mostly forgettable, so I can't definitely say whether it was in the film or not. Are you absolutely sure it was an Iron Man flick? In any case, we're not going to link to a copyrighted movie. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely from the third movie when he loses his suit in that kids garage and has to infiltrate Mandarin's lair without the suit. Dismas|^(talk) 16:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a toy set called "Tony Stark the Mechanic" for Iron Man 3 and it comes with a Christmas ornament among other holdable tools, so its definitely from 3. 2600:100C:B01D:63B8:E3F8:317D:B1AA:1B83 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many airplanes have crashed in Alaska but never been found according to the Rescue Coordination Center records in Anchorage, Alaska?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and efforts....they are so very much appreciated. This is a topic that I have followed for years as an aviation enthusiast here in Alaska. At the last updating of my records, my figures indicated the number to be approximately 63 including both civilian and military aircraft missing combined total. Your assistance in updating my information as well as supplying any useful links to continue said updates on my own again would be so gratefully appreciated! Rodney J. Rainey Eagle River, Alaska [Redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.127.232 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a proper answer but this indicates that before WW2 no records were kept. Also it seems that all the records prior to 1994 have been lost. Finally an aircraft may have departed from a place in Alaska, never arrived at its destination but could have crashed in Canada. Does the Alaska RCC have any information? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news report about four missing in 1935. And another five from that winter. Have you counted those? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human chess

User:Minorfixaccount asked this question about human chess almost two and a half years ago: "Piece captures are represented by choreographed fights that determine whether the piece is actually taken or not." How would this work? If a piece moves onto another pieces square, it's captured. It's completely deterministic, the stage fight wouldn't deliver the capture information, the piece's movement would. For example, if a pawn moves to another pawn's square, and they have a stage fight, the moving pawn should always win. So what is there to determine? Are the rules of the variant of Human Chess being talked about somehow different from Inanimate Chess? AFAICS, Minorfixaccount never received a reply. I have to ask the same question. The only difference between human chess and normal chess is that the pieces are represented by actual living humans. The actual rules remain the exact same. So what is there to determine? This is not exactly Archon, but your bog-standard, common-or-garden chess. JIP | Talk 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a pretend battle with the outcome already determined, like a Civil War battle reenactment. Note that depending on the size of the squares and the costumes, there might not be room for both on the same square, so the battle would need to take place when they are on adjacent squares. (Human chess seems problematic for knights, which can jump over other pieces, as actually jumping over people with horses is rather dangerous.) StuRat (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Minorfixaccount doesn't seem to have edited anything for almost two years, so I'm not sure if this will help him/her, but it does help me. I have personally seen a human chess match (see the second picture in the article, with the body painted people). There were no horses, the knights were simply designated with pictures. The actual playing was done by two professional-league Austrian chess players, who told the pieces what to do. Battles were elaborate displays, but with pre-determined outcomes, and no actual physical contact. JIP | Talk 20:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but they still can't jump over other players, so that means the knights would have to shuffle past everyone in their way, which wouldn't look much like chess, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the squares were considerably larger than the space taken up by a person (eg suppose they were 5'x5') then it would be easy to walk or run between other players when performing a knight's move - and there would be room within a square for a credible hand-to-hand combat. As theater - I could see it being workable. There have been many computer game chess implementations that pull off the hand-to-hand combat trick quite nicely. This YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq5i92h2Coo shows some of the hilarious animations in "Battle Chess", for example. SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookie win." Deor (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel The Chessmen of Mars featured a combination of Gladiatorial combat and (Martian) Chess in which the capture or not was determined by the outcome of fights to the death between the 'pieces' concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old boy! You might find the Star Trek novel The Final Reflection interesting. A large amount of the opening chapters is devoted to the Klingon equivalent of chess both on the board and with living pieces and the games with living pieces are actual fights and can go either way. For example in the board game a "blockader" piece can't be taken. In the living game this doesn't apply and blockaders who try and rely on the board game rules learn otherwise the hard way. Hope this helps old bean! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]