|
Non Sequitur posted:Not quite. The later Stuarts were pretty friendly to France, partly because the French had taken in the exiled royal family during the Commonwealth. They worked together in the Third Anglo-Dutch War, among other things. Following the Glorious Revolution, there was basically 150 years of English-French enmity, but the War of the Quadruple Alliance was a brief exception. I think that here we're probably defining the 'modern nations' as being post Napoleon, ie. the point at which foreign policy in both countries fell under the remit of elected governments and not Kings.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:It's worth noting that the US-trained Georgian army turned out to be utterly worthless at fighting a more conventional war against the Russians during the Georgian war, since the Georgian army had pretty strong focus on building up light infantry to be used for counterinsurgency warfare. That's fairly recent military history. I was thinking something along those lines, but upon further reading it's a 'kind of'. It's true that the Georgian army was US trained primarily for deployment in stability operations, and it's true that the Russians fought along a classical Soviet model (moving in column, attacking from the lead elements, etc.) And it's true that the Russians won. However, generally the Georgians did very well at the tactical level and very poorly at the strategic level, while generally the Russians did very poorly at the tactical level (with the exception of their airborne/special forces) and very well at the strategic level. So my understanding is that the Georgians were so thoroughly out strategized that even US training in how to fight a conventional war would have done much good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 21:43
|
|
High Fidel posted:Spotting rounds only need to be fired once from a position. Since the artillery units usually hold their position for a while it is likely that they can start with the barrage, since calibrating the guns with a spotting round is usually the first task a unit is given. I feel kinda stupid writing this, considering your nickname. Spotting rounds as in "rounds in adjustment" rather than rounds to sight in the gun. So whats going to happen is: 1) FO calls in fire mission. 2) FDC(Fire Direction Center or somethign) receives; calculates gun angles, charge, aziumuth. 3) FDC relays targeting information to gun line 4) Gun line fires, FDC informs FO rounds incoming(so called spotting rounds) 5) FO observes impacts, sends corrections to FDC or tells the FDC rounds were good and to "fire for effect". There is a whole formal script for how the FDC and the FO are supposed to interact on the radio. Comrade_Robot posted:I was thinking something along those lines, but upon further reading it's a 'kind of'. It's true that the Georgian army was US trained primarily for deployment in stability operations, and it's true that the Russians fought along a classical Soviet model (moving in column, attacking from the lead elements, etc.) And it's true that the Russians won. At the lower levels, the skills to fight a counter-insurgency overlap with the skills to fight a conventional conflict. The inverse is not true. vains fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Are there any books writen about the Georgian/russian conflict? Or accessible theories on how modern conventional warfare might look?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why the Crusades was so unsuccessful? I mean all of them,why was there so many of them in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
Jiriam posted:Are there any books writen about the Georgian/russian conflict? Or accessible theories on how modern conventional warfare might look? You could always watch 5 Days of War. Or not, it's one of the most blatant examples of propaganda I've ever seen. A truly repugnant piece of cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why the Crusades was so unsuccessful? I mean all of them,why was there so many of them in the first place? Its all about logistics, the italian states weren't really ready to transport alot of warriors across the continent and sustain it for free, the byzantines weren't expecting the crusaders would hog them down. There is alot of other factors as well, but i guess logistics is the biggest thing, and the lack of crusader diplomacy. Edit: To elaborate further, surprisingly the arabs weren't very unfamiliar, they employed similiar tactics to the europeans in military warfare, divisions of infantry, archers, cavalry and such, pretty familiar stuff, however the only thing that they weren't exactly used to where probably the turkish dog fighting tactics. Fizzil fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why the Crusades was so unsuccessful? I mean all of them,why was there so many of them in the first place? It was extremely successful! The Crusades allowed Christian kingdoms to directly communicate with Middle Eastern Muslim states, opening an immense amount of trade routes that didn't exist before them. This allowed the exchange of not only material goods but philosophical and scientific ideas that allowed European states to develop from their comparative backwardness and gave the Iberians the techniques to create boats that could explore vast amounts of seas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:You could always watch 5 Days of War. Or not, it's one of the most blatant examples of propaganda I've ever seen. A truly repugnant piece of cinema. Clearly you haven't seen Act of Valor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Clearly you haven't seen Act of Valor. Having just watched this movie, that's exactly what came to mind. It's incredibly blatant and heavy handed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Was there a "lost generation" of Americans after the civil war? I tend to watch westerns and imagine the characters as ptsd'd veterans. Is there literature about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why the Crusades was so unsuccessful? I mean all of them,why was there so many of them in the first place? The first ones weren't unsuccessful at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Clearly you haven't seen Act of Valor. No I haven't, but I have trouble imagining that it's as openly vile. 5 Days of War could more accurately have been called "Attack of The Dirty Baby-eating Commie Rape Monsters".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:The first ones weren't unsuccessful at all. 2nd one bombed, I'm afraid. Well, unless you count the Norwegian Crusade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
E: Should probably quote the right post!Jiriam posted:Are there any books writen about the Georgian/russian conflict? Or accessible theories on how modern conventional warfare might look? One useful thing to remember when if you're interested abuot topics of this kind, military stuff, government policy, etc. is that there are institutions inside the US government that make their papers and studies publicly available. In this case you can check out this paper from Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was there a "lost generation" of Americans after the civil war? I tend to watch westerns and imagine the characters as ptsd'd veterans. Is there literature about this? http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Land-Susan-Campbell-Bartoletti/dp/059038371X I'm pretty sure if a realistic version of this kid's life after the Civil War was written, he would probably be pretty hosed up in the head. He was already in the war for a pretty stupid reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:One useful thing to remember when if you're interested abuot topics of this kind, military stuff, government policy, etc. is that there are institutions inside the US government that make their papers and studies publicly available. In this case you can check out this paper from Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. I got real excited for a second and thought 'SSI wrote about the Crusades?! I may have a career after all!' Breaking my heart man 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me about the use of camels in the US Army? I saw a book at Barnes and Noble the other day about how the army experimented with camelry in the west during the early/mid 1800s for...well I don't know. Fighting natives? General transportation? The wikipedia article about it is pretty short and I was hoping one of you guys had some more knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I got real excited for a second and thought 'SSI wrote about the Crusades?! I may have a career after all!' Breaking my heart man Yeah, whoops, quoted the wrong post. Sorry to disappoint you. History degrees aren't good for getting a job (I should know), but on the plus side they're pretty good for impressing people on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Is it true that during the Battle of France when the allied resistance started collapsing after Dunkirk, Churchill offered an official union between Great Britain and France? That would have been weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it true that during the Battle of France when the allied resistance started collapsing after Dunkirk, Churchill offered an official union between Great Britain and France? That would have been weird. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was there a "lost generation" of Americans after the civil war? I tend to watch westerns and imagine the characters as ptsd'd veterans. Is there literature about this? Civil war vets by and large were pretty well taken care of by the standards of the day. There isnt much to go on as far as PTSD and the like but in general they did a pretty good job of reintegrating back into society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it true that during the Battle of France when the allied resistance started collapsing after Dunkirk, Churchill offered an official union between Great Britain and France? That would have been weird. The idea wasn't Churchill's, but he gave it his support at Charles de Gaulle's request as the French government was vacillating between armistice and continuing to fight, and a declaration of union was seen as the only concrete way to convince the French PM that UK would not abandon France even after a military defeat. Prime Minister Reynaud embraced the deal but his government rejected it, as they saw it as English opportunist pigs trying to steal their colonies while leaving metropolitan France run over by Germans. As a result Reynaud resigned and Pétain formed a new government. In a similar way and at the same time, after Winter War and following German occupation of Norway and Denmark, there was discussion in Sweden and Finland of a union. King of Sweden would have been the head of state while Marshall Mannerheim would have been the commander in chief of armed forces. The union was shot down by German and Soviet governments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Can anyone tell me about the use of camels in the US Army? I saw a book at Barnes and Noble the other day about how the army experimented with camelry in the west during the early/mid 1800s for...well I don't know. Fighting natives? General transportation? The wikipedia article about it is pretty short and I was hoping one of you guys had some more knowledge. From what I've heard, and this is recollected from a vague memory, it was for efficient transporting situations. I doubt people rode around on camelbacks loading the muzzle rifles in the heat of southwestern territory battles.. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Is there a more  era in military history than the War Lord period in China?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why the Crusades was so unsuccessful? I mean all of them,why was there so many of them in the first place? The first one was actually successful, and by far. What set it apart from all the later crusades was the lack of unity among the Muslims (for reasons I can't quite remember), which changed after the first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
The fourth crusade was extremely successful, even more so than the first one. loot = success VVVV Nenonen fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The fourth crusade was extremely successful, even more so than the first one. Define "successful", cause if you mean "looting and pillaging Constantinople" then yes, if you mean "actually reaching the holy land' then no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
If Saladin never came into the picture and unified the Muslim states I wonder what would have happened. I need to play more Crusader Kings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Something I'm curious about, how did early (American Revolutionary War Era) mortars work? Same as what the concept would be come, cannons pointed up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Blckdrgn posted:Something I'm curious about, how did early (American Revolutionary War Era) mortars work? Same as what the concept would be come, cannons pointed up? They were really simple. Short metal tube that held some gunpowder and threw a bigass round shot way up into the air at a steep angle. Around this time explosive shells with very dangerous manual fuses were being used, mortars were well adapted for this kind of ammunition. The Last of the Mohicans has a nice rendition of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
While reading Crucible of War I discovered that that whole siege and ensuing massacre as they left the fort actually happened and was, suprisingly, pretty accurately portrayed by the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:It's worth noting that the US-trained Georgian army turned out to be utterly worthless at fighting a more conventional war against the Russians during the Georgian war, since the Georgian army had pretty strong focus on building up light infantry to be used for counterinsurgency warfare. That's fairly recent military history. Even if the Georgians were trained with heavy weapons and tactics and had the best NATO style mechanized armor in the world, they would have been hosed maybe in 9 days rather than six. You're also ignoring the fact that the best trained, led and equipped brigade was off in OIF anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:They were really simple. Short metal tube that held some gunpowder and threw a bigass round shot way up into the air at a steep angle. Around this time explosive shells with very dangerous manual fuses were being used, mortars were well adapted for this kind of ammunition. I always wondered how historically accurate that part of the movie was, considering it was filled with fintlock super human aiming powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If Saladin never came into the picture and unified the Muslim states I wonder what would have happened. Saladin didn't personally unify the Muslim states. His family served the Zengids, a powerful Turkish dynasty. It was actually the Zengids who unified Syria, northern Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Following the death of his uncle, Saladin acted as their deputy in Egypt. Eventually he decided he wanted to rule in his own right and consequently had a falling out with his liege in Damascus, Nur ad Din. In fact, the approximate issue was that Saladin had failed to support attacks on the Crusader states, because he hoped that having the Kingdom of Jerusalem between him and Syria would help him retain his independence in Egypt. Nur ad Din was on the point of invading Egypt to depose Saladin when he died of a sudden illness. His heir was only a child, and Saladin was able to politically outmaneuver the remaining Zengid loyalists, and finally he controlled both Syria and Egypt (unifying them after he had split them). Then he went after the Crusaders. Saladin was an individual of exceptional capabilities, but if he had never lived, or if Nur ad Din had survived and defeated him, it's most likely that the Zengids would have retained Egypt and Syria and themselves crushed the Crusader states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:I always wondered how historically accurate that part of the movie was, considering it was filled with fintlock super human aiming powers. Well to be fair at least the main character was using a flintlock rifle instead of just a regular musket... the speed with which he reloads it (at least once while running at the same time) seems a lot more superhuman though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In a similar way and at the same time, after Winter War and following German occupation of Norway and Denmark, there was discussion in Sweden and Finland of a union. King of Sweden would have been the head of state while Marshall Mannerheim would have been the commander in chief of armed forces. The union was shot down by German and Soviet governments. Aww, that would have been pretty cool. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Civil war vets by and large were pretty well taken care of by the standards of the day. There isnt much to go on as far as PTSD and the like but in general they did a pretty good job of reintegrating back into society. Considering things like PTSD were written off as "soldier's heart", nostalgia, homesickness or nerves, it's hard to say. In 1863 the Union started sending mentally ill soldiers home by putting them on trains with their name and home destination pinned to their jackets and it caused a bit of outcry because (obviously) a bunch of them ended up wandering around as vagrants. It led to the first mental hospital being built and the director was surprised at the level of demand for mental facilities. Industrialization, modernized warfare and the development of contemporary health services and infrastructure are all deeply intertwined in ways that can't really be simply picked apart, but there's a clear correlation in the rise of industrialized warfare and the appearance of large numbers of cases of people who experienced some degree of psychological trauma as a result of battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Industrialization, modernized warfare and the development of contemporary health services and infrastructure are all deeply intertwined in ways that can't really be simply picked apart, but there's a clear correlation in the rise of industrialized warfare and the appearance of large numbers of cases of people who experienced some degree of psychological trauma as a result of battle. Really? Because I'd love to see the data on pre-industrial warfare on which this correlation would be based.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Really? Because I'd love to see the data on pre-industrial warfare on which this correlation would be based. It's simple logistics. Pre-industrial countries simply did not have the means to supply troop movements in the scale industrialized countries can. For example, the Grande Armee of Napoleon was 600,000 men at the height of its power. An estimated 65 million soldiers took part in World War 1. It's not surprising the latter war sees more PTSD cases. You can also look at the medical care available to ordinary people pre-ACW. As medical care became more widely available, the documented cases of PSTD naturally rise in number.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:41
|
|