|
Thanks guys, I of course wasn't expecting it to be anything close to prescience. Nenonen's explanation of "The first Russian railroad was an American Southerner, and he just built what he knew" was the kind of mundane-but-ultimately-decisive coincidence I was looking for.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I heard from a Russian history TA that there might have been some explicitly defensive ideas in adopting that wider gauge, but he was Russian himself and might have been a little biased. He might have been joking. "So enemy tanks won't get through" is a common Russian joke regarding terrible roads, so he could have been making an equivalent about railroads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm guessing he didn't get a VC because it was an act of self-preservation. That might be bollocks though. To get the VC a soldier has to be recommended by an officer at regimental level and supported by three witnesses. That's the kicker - someone needs to see you do whatever it is you've done to get it. The CGC also has to be recommended, but a pile of bodies and hundreds of machine gun rounds lying next to them is generally proof enough. There has been at least one instance of the three witness requirement being waived; Lieutenant Commander Roope was awarded the VC for actions at sea in 1940 with the recommendation coming from the German officer commanding the battleship he was engaging. This, along with the testimony of the survivors (who had all been below decks at the time so weren't really "witnesses") was deemed sufficient for the award. So technically Corporal Pun could have been awarded the VC based on the recommendations of any of the enemy insurgents attacking him. Unfortunately for him (and I'm sure they weren't too happy about it either), he killed them all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Did the Germans try adjusting the wheels on some of their trains to the different gauge of Russian track? Seems like that would have been easier than building new track at 10 miles per day or whatever. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Did the Germans try adjusting the wheels on some of their trains to the different gauge of Russian track? Seems like that would have been easier than building new track at 10 miles per day or whatever. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Did the Germans try adjusting the wheels on some of their trains to the different gauge of Russian track? Seems like that would have been easier than building new track at 10 miles per day or whatever. What am I missing here? I'd imagine that changing the axles and wheels on a train requires a specialized facility and cutting some serious metal. Re-gauging just requires unbolting and nudging some rails.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Did the Germans try adjusting the wheels on some of their trains to the different gauge of Russian track? Seems like that would have been easier than building new track at 10 miles per day or whatever. What am I missing here? They tried modifying it, but it didn't work out so well, thus they had to re-do the whole lot in the occupied territories. If you're really interested, the book my Dad loaned me was called "Engines of War". There is a good review of it here. It's a good read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:There has been at least one instance of the three witness requirement being waived; Lieutenant Commander Roope was awarded the VC for actions at sea in 1940 with the recommendation coming from the German officer commanding the battleship he was engaging. This, along with the testimony of the survivors (who had all been below decks at the time so weren't really "witnesses") was deemed sufficient for the award. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I love this one. For unnecessarily engaging a cruiser with a tiny destroyer and throwing away the lives of most of his men, this dude gets a VC. Well it's not like he himself was not in danger. And he died while assisting in rescuing the rest of the survivors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I love this one. For unnecessarily engaging a cruiser with a tiny destroyer and throwing away the lives of most of his men, this dude gets a VC. Glowworm stumbled into the German ship in bad weather. It's not like he was trying to get himself a VC with a suicidal engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Glowworm stumbled into the German ship in bad weather. It's not like he was trying to get himself a VC with a suicidal engagement. Which makes it sound like an irresponsible move. But it's wikipedia, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
gently caress the haters, naval citations are best citations.quote:For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Parche in a predawn attack on a Japanese convoy, 31 July 1944. Boldly penetrating the screen of a heavily escorted convoy, Comdr. Ramage launched a perilous surface attack by delivering a crippling stern shot into a freighter and quickly following up with a series of bow and stern torpedoes to sink the leading tanker and damage the second one. Exposed by the light of bursting flares and bravely defiant of terrific shellfire passing close overhead, he struck again, sinking a transport by two forward reloads. In the mounting fury of fire from the damaged and sinking tanker, he calmly ordered his men below, remaining on the bridge to fight it out with an enemy now disorganized and confused. Swift to act as a fast transport closed in to ram, Comdr. Ramage daringly swung the stern of the speeding Parche as she crossed the bow of the onrushing ship, clearing by less than 50 feet but placing his submarine in a deadly crossfire from escorts on all sides and with the transport dead ahead. Undaunted, he sent 3 smashing "down the throat" bow shots to stop the target, then scored a killing hit as a climax to 46 minutes of violent action with the Parche and her valiant fighting company retiring victorious and unscathed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:He might have been joking. "So enemy tanks won't get through" is a common Russian joke regarding terrible roads, so he could have been making an equivalent about railroads. Nah, he was dead serious. Basically he said that any invaders would have to either convert their trains to the Russian gauge (a laborious process) or regauge all the tracks in the conquered region (also a laborious process). He coulda been flat-out wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
kalthir posted:Also IIRC the first Russian line was built by a Russian. Checking now apparently it was Pavel Petrovich Melinkov who built the Moscow - St. Petersburg line (there was also that other line, St. Petersburg - some village, but I'm not sure what gauge that was or who built it). I see you're right. Mr. George Washington Whistler was hired for consultancy, but he wasn't the lead engineer and he also wasn't a southerner. He is responsible for the gauge, but it isn't exactly the same as the Confederate cauge, there's a few millimetres difference. Whistler died of cholera in St. Petersburg in 1849, only at age of 49 years and two years before the completion of the project. Today Finland uses the same 1524mm gauge as Confederates did, while the official Russian gauge is 1520mm. This difference is small enough to allow cross-border train traffic, though. Grand Prize Winner posted:He coulda been flat-out wrong, though. Yeah... that would have required the Russian government to realize in 1840s that one hundred years afterwards Russian military would be too weak to stop a German invasion so trickery of that sort was required - a type of defeatism that Imperial Russia was not known for. This would also have required the government to have known what the eventual Western European gauge would be (there were German and Austrian railways back then, but would their gauge become the standard?). Nenonen fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Oh, the Wikipedia implied otherwise. "Though aware that the enemy destroyers were attempting to draw him towards German capital ships, he gave chase." Nelson posted:No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy. Finest traditions of the navy and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
asbo subject posted:Finest traditions of the navy and all that. That was pure bravado on Nelson's part. The Royal Navy had very strict classifications and captains were expected to run from a superior vessel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That was pure bravado on Nelson's part. The Royal Navy had very strict classifications and captains were expected to run from a superior vessel. They may be bigger, faster, have better guns and armour but by god no ship sailed by a foreigner is superior to a Royal Navy ship. You, Sir, deserve a horse whipping!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:(there were German and Austrian railways back then, but would their gauge become the standard?). The British were the first to use what eventually become "standard gauge". Other countries imported British locomotives during the early years of railways, the United States included, not to mention that it was much more efficient for the all the railroad companies to use the same gauge, so it became, well, standard. Ask me about the history of rail transport guys!! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:The British were the first to use what eventually become "standard gauge". Other countries imported British locomotives during the early years of railways, the United States included, not to mention that it was much more efficient for the all the railroad companies to use the same gauge, so it became, well, standard. Who inventented the steam train? Was it the Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Ask me about the history of rail transport guys!! Tell me all about the history or rail transport!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
asbo subject posted:Who inventented the steam train? Was it the Americans? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
asbo subject posted:Who inventented the steam train? Was it the Americans? In case you're being serious (probably not), the British. vvvvv of course how could i forget srbija Farecoal fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
serbia invented trains
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:serbia invented trains Aren't magnets enough without nicking trains?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
asbo subject posted:They may be bigger, faster, have better guns and armour but by god no ship sailed by a foreigner is superior to a Royal Navy ship. This was actually one of the reasons the American frigates had success in 1812. The American frigates were way overgunned for a ship that looked like a "frigate." British engage the "frigate" and get out gunned like mad. Also because 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:This was actually one of the reasons the American frigates had success in 1812. The American frigates were way overgunned for a ship that looked like a "frigate." British engage the "frigate" and get out gunned like mad. They also had ridiculous double strength hulls because in Europe you couldn't build ships like that because all the forests had literally been cut down, whereas America had vast untouched forests that could be tapped in abundance for ship timber. The British assessment of the Constitution class was "this is basically as powerful at a 74 gunner". e: also 'success' in the context of 'occasionally striking out against a fairly strong blockade'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:e: also 'success' in the context of 'occasionally striking out against a fairly strong blockade'. O.H. Perry posted:We have met the enemy and they are ours. 9/10/13. Never forget (Lake Erie).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:serbia invented trains The wheels were made with Bulgarian skulls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They also had ridiculous double strength hulls because in Europe you couldn't build ships like that because all the forests had literally been cut down, whereas America had vast untouched forests that could be tapped in abundance for ship timber. I thought the British were however building quite a lot of ships in Canada (or at least acquiring timber from there), so how was the situation actually different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Ambulocetus posted:I thought the British were however building quite a lot of ships in Canada (or at least acquiring timber from there), so how was the situation actually different? Canadians can't build poo poo. If it weren't for the french canadians being shitter you would all be speaking German.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Ambulocetus posted:I thought the British were however building quite a lot of ships in Canada (or at least acquiring timber from there), so how was the situation actually different? The average British frigate had 38 guns, was lightly built and lightly crewed. The American superfrigates had about 44 guns, were very heavily built and carried more, better motivated crew. Factoring in various things and the American ships generally beat the British with about a 5:1 or better casualty ratio. My best source on this stuff is Roosevelt's book on the War of 1812. He does a lot of good analysis on the results of the naval fighting. Looking at one of the more famous actions, the Constitution vs the Guerriere, we see a typically lopsided result. The Constitution had 456 men and lost 14 killed and wounded, the Guerriere had 272 and lost 79 casualties. Roosevelt calculates the Constitution's broadside at 27 guns for 684 pounds of metal versus 24 for 556 pounds for the British frigate. Looking at the action, most of the American casualties came when the two ships fouled each other and were hit by small arms fire. The heavier American ship protected its crew where the British ship couldn't. And yes, I'm citing one of THOSE Roosevelt's, Theodore R to be precise. He was a writer early in his career and his book on the War of 1812 is still a useful reference. It's also available free as an ebook and anyone interested in the period should read it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
That war is like talking about third division football, with britains C team just making up the numbers. The two premier league teams were having a proper war in europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Mans posted:Is there any other example of a state using almost exclusively foreign peoples as their armies? I guess the Ptolemaic Empire counts, they had to convince Gauls to migrate to Egypt and all. Maybe post 18th century colonial powers too. The Byzantines, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 03:35
|
|
asbo subject posted:That war is like talking about third division football, with britains C team just making up the numbers. Hey now, they were at least led by decent generals. Who got themselves horribly killed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
So just how big are regiments in the British army? A wiki plunge brought me to the page on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Highlanders and it lists it as having 21 battalions 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:So just how big are regiments in the British army? A wiki plunge brought me to the page on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Highlanders and it lists it as having 21 battalions That'd be around 2 tanks per battalion on the armoured side I guess! Seriously though, it's all lineage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
I think it may count on TA as well (I do not know how the TA works!)? Also, I didn't know Teddy Roosevelt was a hardcore Military Historian too? that man was everything!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:So just how big are regiments in the British army? A wiki plunge brought me to the page on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Highlanders and it lists it as having 21 battalions British infantry regiments are administrative and ceremonial organisations only and thus can theoretically have any number of battalions. The vast expansion of British infantry battalions in the first and second world wars did lead to many regiments having 20+ battalions at peak size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 12:06
|
|
Hiridion posted:British infantry regiments are administrative and ceremonial organisations only and thus can theoretically have any number of battalions. The vast expansion of British infantry battalions in the first and second world wars did lead to many regiments having 20+ battalions at peak size. British Military Tradition is a incredibly facinating thing, and needs some of the experts to go into more depth about it in this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I know a little but not too much. The Whites were actually three different armies under three different generals all of them had a vague aim of somehow returning Tsar to the throne before he was capped but one of the reasons why the Soviets eventually won was because these guys had no cohesian with the occupying former allies OR each other. Hi there...I will immediately be needing a good book on the Russian Civil War. Thanks very much in advance. I majored in Russian/Eastern European studies, but focused more on contemporary Stalin and onward stuff and not so much the revolution, which I regret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 12:18
|
|