|
Worth mentioning here that ancient greek hoplite battles really were just a shoving match. Short, soft spears, and everyone wearing nigh-impenetrable (for the time and area) armour led to the two formations just sort of shoving at eachother trying to stab the other guy over his shield. And because everyone was more protected on the right, by his buddies' shield, each formation would drift to it's right. So the two lines would sort of slide along eachother and auto-flank. Eventually longer spears and more sensible formations were adopted and poo poo got interesting. I'm curious about events post-Thermopylae. From what I've read, the greeks basically argued among themselves constantly and did a bunch of pointless maneuvering which led to them losing the favourable terrain. Meanwhile, Xerxes was a tactically competent guy with a well trained and obedient army. Despite all this eventually the Persians just sort of...gave up and went home? It makes no sense. Or was it all down to the Athenian navy being badasses off-stage somehow?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Or was it all down to the Athenian navy being badasses off-stage somehow?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Let me guess, you take up apprenticeship with some older soldier and he makes you wash his poopy pants and take out the buckets. No seriously, I imagine that like picking up a trade. You start as Gesell and run all the trivial stuff for your master. A lot of these guys have "servants," so I think that's how it went down, I just don't know. And science isn't about something that seems like a good idea to us, it's about knowing. (These are a hundred/hundred and fifty years before what I'm studying, but have some images.)  
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Worth mentioning here that ancient greek hoplite battles really were just a shoving match. Short, soft spears, and everyone wearing nigh-impenetrable (for the time and area) armour led to the two formations just sort of shoving at eachother trying to stab the other guy over his shield. And because everyone was more protected on the right, by his buddies' shield, each formation would drift to it's right. So the two lines would sort of slide along eachother and auto-flank. That is sort of the prototypical Greek hoplite battle, though a. terrain, tactics, and other forces could change things very quickly and b. they are still trying to stab each other. Pushing was incidental, not a major part of the game plan. And yeah, Salamis hosed up the Persian supply lines and they lost at Plataea. The Athenians were off shore looking for a ruckus, the Spartans could hold the Isthmus of Corinth pretty much indefinitely, so there was no real 'exit plan' for the Persians. What else were they going to do, settle down for an attritional war in a foreign land while that big rear end army starts to cough politely and ask about when their paychecks are coming though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I would have a question related to pikechat: Once I read somewhere that the janissaries were so effective largely because of their ability to employ very individualistic tactics, basically infiltrating rigid European pike formations, and breaking them with swords. While pikesmen would be paralyzed in such close quarters combat, the janissaries, trained to fight on their own, without need for a formation, would thrive in the chaos they caused. The Spanish at the advent of the Tercio liked to put dudes in their pike blocks armed with bucklers and swords. These guys disappeared realll early on. The problem that arises is infiltrating a pike block in the first place. It's rigid, but it's like 6-layers-of-spear-rigid. How is a dude with a sword going to get close enough to the first rank of pikemen at all? The Spaniards had their own pikes to lock it down, giving their swordsmen an opportunity to move in. The Janissaries don't have that option. You're right about the Janissaries being well-trained and capable of unit warfare. I dunno if they were individually skilled, but it's reasonable. The Ottomans employed many irregulars that would roam around the battlefield and mostly pillage, but they weren't capable of going head-to-head in frontline combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Spanish at the advent of the Tercio liked to put dudes in their pike blocks armed with bucklers and swords. These guys disappeared realll early on. Get on his knees and crawl. Someone post the video again. a travelling HEGEL posted:There are old guys who joined someone's army when they were young men (I found one yesterday who had first enlisted in 1635--the document with his CV on it was produced in '81. Wallenstein was still alive when this man was young Just because they are on the muster rolls doesn't mean they have to fight in the frontlines, experienced soldiers make good NCOs. Or being on the rolls just means they are still getting paid s part of the pension scheme (such as it was). As for the midlife crisis, I believe I've already told the story of the established Latin professor who joined the military because he just couldn't pay the bills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:23
|
|
) but the guy I found today was 70 and had enlisted in his forties, and he's not the only one who did. And I have no idea why. Can you have a middle age crisis in the middle ages?
|
ArchangeI posted:Get on his knees and crawl. Someone post the video again. Right, that's the one with the 80 Years War? You can't do that if all the pikemen are looking at you. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Since this post got me wondering, what would retirement look like for an old soldier in this era and earlier? Would he even be able to retire? If so, how would he support himself? If you work for anyone else, I have no idea. ArchangeI posted:Just because they are on the muster rolls doesn't mean they have to fight in the frontlines, experienced soldiers make good NCOs. quote:As for the midlife crisis, I believe I've already told the story of the established Latin professor who joined the military because he just couldn't pay the bills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I like you, and I like your friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Since this post got me wondering, what would retirement look like for an old soldier in this era and earlier? Would he even be able to retire? If so, how would he support himself? Mid 16th c. to late 17th c. Sweden didn't pay any retirement to soldiers. Soldiers served in the army until their commanding officers thought that they were unfit to serve. Only about 20% survived their service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
the JJ posted:That is sort of the prototypical Greek hoplite battle, though a. terrain, tactics, and other forces could change things very quickly and b. they are still trying to stab each other. Pushing was incidental, not a major part of the game plan. They were already having supply problems as well, since the fleeing Greeks took/destroyed useful crops as they left. The French introduction of military hospitals and retirement homes was a gradual process that iirc took place mostly in the 17th and early 18th century. They were quite atrocious for a long time, though. The purpose was less than amicable. Hospitals were to save the investment made in professional soldiers, in an era where disease was a worse enemy than, well, the enemy, and retirement homes were less to reward soldiers and more to get these trained killers off the streets to prevent their turn toward banditry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:
They were arguing amongst themselves, with the Spartans advocating running and hiding like Thebeans, but according to herodotus, Themistocles tricked them into fighting the decisive battle at salamis. In addition to not being trapped in Europe, Xerxes probably didn't want to spend too much time away from the empire, lest the feistier satraps get any funny notions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:He didn't post it, but he told me where I could find it. Do you not consider archeological evidence documentation? the JJ posted:Clovis points? Aren't those more ~10000 years old? Those are dart points. Rodrigo Diaz posted:
The Bering Strait has occasionally been crossed by prehistoric peoples, as evidence I cite the Yupik languages, related to the languages of the Inuit, which occur on both sides of the strait. They probably were not the first people to cross the strait. Of course as Nenonen points out there was some trade and communication across the Torres strait. Why no technology or crops diffused across it I couldn't say. As far as the origin of bow and arrow in North America goes, it is a contentious topic. Today there isn't one completely accepted answer for the source of bow and arrow technology, but a Eurasian origin is one hypothesis, besides an independent invention. To summarize the evidence, in the Archaic Period dart points in some localities begin gradually shrinking and looking more and more arrow like. These local trends sometimes petered out and existed along side larger dart points. Everything changes between about 0 AD-1000 AD, when darts are replaced completely by arrows In most places, although in Mexico for example the atlatl remained in use until the Spanish conquest. The change is sometimes rapid and occurred in both hunter-gathers and gardening cultures. Some archeologists have identified a generally north-south spread, others contest this. Some identify the shrinking archaic points as experimental darts evolving into arrows, but such examples don't seem closely related to the unquestioned explosion in arrow points in the first millenium AD. To tie this post back to the topic of the thread, some originalists identify the spread of arrow points with the onset of large scale warfare among the farmers of central North America. That is, they say an already extant technology, which was relatively less prominent compared to the older dart, was suddenly propelled into preeminence by its superiority in warfare, explaining why it seems to suddenly appear. But then I ask why would it also suddenly appears among hunter-gatherers? To put myself on a diffusionist limb here, I'm going to predict all arrow points in New Guinea post-date the arrival of the Austronesians, indicating a Eurasian source for the technology in that landmass. Someone with academic database access show me I'm full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:A lot of these guys have "servants," so I think that's how it went down, I just don't know. And science isn't about something that seems like a good idea to us, it's about knowing. What I wanted to hint at was the relation of Meister und Lehrling, I was wondering if you found that it was like picking up a trade with a master who was in a Zunft. Was learning to be a soldier inspired by this fairly regulated system or similar? I don't know how it is in other countries, but in rural areas in Germany and Austria there's still remains of these old customs. Just in case that you've seen these guys and wondered what they are doing and why they are dressed like this. That's the outfit of a Fahrender Gesell, those guys will wear the outfit for the time of their travels.  Btw Hegel, have you heard if these old soldiers that were still alive after so many years of service were called Gefrorener. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Spanish at the advent of the Tercio liked to put dudes in their pike blocks armed with bucklers and swords. These guys disappeared realll early on. They didn't disappear because they were ineffective, they disappeared because having another musket became effective as time went on. re: 60 year old pikemen, some of Alexander's Silver Shields who survived him served well into their 60's as well. You had men who enlisted under Philip, conquer the world then endure the Diadochi wars. a travelling HEGEL posted:A lot of these guys have "servants," so I think that's how it went down, I just don't know. And science isn't about something that seems like a good idea to us, it's about knowing. In the Gaelic world, fosterage and apprenticeship were the most common forms of military training. A soldier (Nobleman or Galloglach primarily) would take on a young relation or promising recruit to be his "harness-bearer". Its all very similliar to how knightly squires work. The Brehon laws give 16 as the age when a man is allowed to bear arms, so this is when the recruit is allowed to participate in battle as a skirmisher if his boss was an infantryman or mounted on a spare horse if his boss is a nobleman. The system lasted up until the 17th century, and its quite a natural way of training up guys and inducting them into a brotherhood of the regiment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
I know about idiot commanders being given responsibility that they should never receive in a million years in Nazi Germany. What about the allies? In the Soviet side you have at the very least Lev Mekhlis and Budyonny while i never fully understood why Patton was allowed to command anything. Fyodor Tolbukhin and Timoshenko seem like really under-rated Soviet commanders. Post your favorite underrated commanders too  There was this work done, i think by someone connected to the U.S. Army, about Operation August Storm. It was extremely detailed and it explained academically why it was such an amazing operation. A goon linked it in the previous thread. Anyone knows what i'm talking about? Also, to the people talking about being depressed while reading about military history, here's the last memoir from Tatsuguchi's diary: quote:Today at 2 o'clock we assembled at Headquarters, the field hospital took also part. The last assault is to be carried out. All the patients in the hospital were made to commit suicide. I am only 33 years old and I am to die. Have no regrets. Banzai to the Emperor. I took care of all patients with a grenade. Goodbye Taeko, my beloved wife, who loved me to the last. Until we meet again grant you God-speed Misaka , who just became four years old, will grow up unhindered. If I feel sorry for you Takiko born February this year and gone before without seeing your father. Well goodbye Mitsue, Brothers Hocan, Sukoshan, Masachan, Mitichan, goodbye. The number participating in this attack is a little over a thousand. Will try to take enemy artillery position. It seems the enemy will probably make an all out attack tomorrow. Mans fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria The first reference appears to be the study you are after, but (at least for me) the link doesn't appear to be working. It should give you enough information for further googling though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Mans posted:I know about idiot commanders being given responsibility that they should never receive in a million years in Nazi Germany. What about the allies? Incompetent generals on the Allied side, huh? Well apart from every member of the French High command in 1940 who was not named Weygand and/or De Gaulle my personal "favourite" is Lloyd Fredendall known for issuing such wonderfully precise orders as "take the walking boys and the popguns to that place that begins with C" and diverting his divisions entire engineer company to build him a fortified headquarters 70 miles behind the frontlines. His division then subsequently fell apart when it was hit by a German counter attack and saw him replaced by Patton who for all his faults was ten times the commander Fredenall was. Underrated allied commanders... well I always had a a major milhistory man-crush on General Richard O'Connor  the man who was doing blitzkriegs in the desert long before anyone had heard of Rommel. He took a force of 36000 men against an Italian army that outnumbered him 5 to 1 and proceeded to utterly demolish them destroying the entire Italian army invading eygpt and conquering half of Libya in the process. Unfortunately then Churchill screwed things up by taking half his army and packing it off to Greece leaving him with an inexperienced force. While personally conducting an inspection of the front lines he was captured by a German patrol and spent the next two years trying to escape from an Italian POW camp. He finally escaped in late 1943 and was given a corps command under Montgomery. He was reasonably competent and did his job ok but didn't get on with Monty so he was shipped out to India where he spent the rest of the war organising supplies for the Burma campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I would have a question related to pikechat: Once I read somewhere that the janissaries were so effective largely because of their ability to employ very individualistic tactics, basically infiltrating rigid European pike formations, and breaking them with swords. While pikesmen would be paralyzed in such close quarters combat, the janissaries, trained to fight on their own, without need for a formation, would thrive in the chaos they caused. Has anyone here read more about ottoman tactics? I just found a few journal articles that touch the subject and a few books. Some guy at my uni wrote his MT about that. I'll order it and see if it's any good. There's an important point about ottoman battle tactics that doesn't seem to turn up. Maybe I didn't translate it properly, or it has another name in english: Sultansschanze, or Sultan's redoubt. Let's see if it's really so relevant as the german article in wikipedia about the Kapikulu puts it. e: Meh. Just the abstracts of these journal articles is in english. The rest is turkish. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Ferrosol posted:
quote:During the night 19th Brigade HQ attempted to negotiate a ceasefire with the commander of the Italian XXII Corps and garrison in Tobruk. It was hoped they would succeed, but a telephone call from the Italian supreme command put paid to their efforts. Mussolini himself had spoken personally to General Manella, forbidding him to surrender, and informing him that squadrons of Italian bombers were on their way as reinforcements. Later that night Italian SM.79s carried out a surprise low-level attack, which bombed some 8,000 prisoners who had been gathered inside a fenced enclosure, killing and wounding hundreds of their men. This bombing broke the will of many among those still prepared to fight. A lighting strike and daring bombing raid...against the Italian POWs followed by a general surrendering himself but not his troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Has anyone here read more about ottoman tactics? I just found a few journal articles that touch the subject and a few books. Some guy at my uni wrote his MT about that. I'll order it and see if it's any good. I've heard good things about the Memoirs of a Janissary. Apparently, the whole point of the book is giving the enemies of the Ottoman Empire an idea about how Ottoman tactics and politics worked. - Not having read the book myself, I can't guarantee its quality, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:What I wanted to hint at was the relation of Meister und Lehrling, I was wondering if you found that it was like picking up a trade with a master who was in a Zunft. Was learning to be a soldier inspired by this fairly regulated system or similar? InspectorBloor posted:Btw Hegel, have you heard if these old soldiers that were still alive after so many years of service were called Gefrorener. Edit: Ha, I'm reading this and the entire House of Hohenzollern is apparently wizards.  Rabhadh posted:In the Gaelic world, fosterage and apprenticeship were the most common forms of military training. A soldier (Nobleman or Galloglach primarily) would take on a young relation or promising recruit to be his "harness-bearer". Its all very similar to how knightly squires work. The Brehon laws give 16 as the age when a man is allowed to bear arms, so this is when the recruit is allowed to participate in battle as a skirmisher if his boss was an infantryman or mounted on a spare horse if his boss is a nobleman. The system lasted up until the 17th century, and its quite a natural way of training up guys and inducting them into a brotherhood of the regiment. With the exception of the nobles. Very young noblemen routinely show up in the ranks or as Gefreyter, and often they turn out to be related to the Captains of other companies (or, more rarely, to their own captain). This is still a few years before the development of a military academy in Saxony, so it makes perfect sense that that's what they're doing. I imagine the part where they serve people who aren't their own relatives is establishing ties of patronage. Bear in mind that I haven't been reading muster rolls for that long and I might be completely wrong about everything. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
my dad posted:I've heard good things about the Memoirs of a Janissary. Apparently, the whole point of the book is giving the enemies of the Ottoman Empire an idea about how Ottoman tactics and politics worked. - Not having read the book myself, I can't guarantee its quality, though. I've got that one on the list already. Looks promising. Btw, one article that I downloaded before turned out to be quite interesting. Scorched earth tactics in Ottoman Hungary
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Mans posted:In the Soviet side you have at the very least Lev Mekhlis and Budyonny while i never fully understood why Patton was allowed to command anything. I wouldn't consider Patton a bad commander. On the contrary, he was probably one of the few generals with the aggressiveness and mobile drive to match the likes of Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, et al. It's just that what's acceptable for a general in Nazi Germany isn't going to be acceptable for an army of a democracy. MacArthur I would consider to be much worse. Monty was so self-aggrandizing that it ended up affecting his ability to deliver results. And of course Fredendall was crap and it was a good thing that he was replaced so early on. === My own questions: 1. Is there any truth to the idea that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just part one of a longer-term plan to eventually invade Iran (or was it Pakistan) and therefore gain a port on the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea, or was that just a Clancy-fueled fever dream? 2. I've read that during the Victorian era/Great Game, a big influence in British/Russian relations was trying to discourage Russia from expanding further into Asia, namely British-occupied Afghanistan and even India. How feasible would it have been for Russia to march an army down there with 18th/19th century technology? gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wouldn't consider Patton a bad commander. On the contrary, he was probably one of the few generals with the aggressiveness and mobile drive to match the likes of Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, et al. It's just that what's acceptable for a general in Nazi Germany isn't going to be acceptable for an army of a democracy. My opinion on Patton is always that he's the sort of commander that if his plans worked, then history would sing his praises, and if it failed, history would condemn him as the biggest idiot ever. I think he took too many risks given what the allied national priority was. While Guderian et al had a definite schedule (reach Moscow before winter! Knock the USSR out fast or we lose!), it is less clear to me what Patton's hastiness was meant to accomplish, given that victory was inevitable anyway. (You can speak of containing the Soviets, but that is not for Patton to decide.) quote:1. Is there any truth to the idea that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just part one of a longer-term plan to eventually invade Iran (or was it Pakistan) and therefore gain a port on the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea, or was that just a Clancy-fueled fever dream? It's a fever dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:There are old guys who joined someone's army when they were young men (I found one yesterday who had first enlisted in 1635--the document with his CV on it was produced in '81. Wallenstein was still alive when this man was young For an old man with little or no relatives to take care of him or significant possessions life in the regiment is the closest to pension you can get. You could try to look up family trees and see if there are any similarities (no children alive etc.) Since life in the regiment seems to be something that inherits from father to son you could also try to look up their fathers and see if they had been part of a regiment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My opinion on Patton is always that he's the sort of commander that if his plans worked, then history would sing his praises, and if it failed, history would condemn him as the biggest idiot ever. I think he took too many risks given what the allied national priority was. "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." - gets stuck at Metz for three months. Patton in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
after the fall of France the UK was offered an armisitce by Germany. Was the this delivered official through diplomatic channels or like radio propaganda broadcast. If i understand correctly it involved handing over some colonies to germany and retaining a symbolic army/navy
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:after the fall of France the UK was offered an armisitce by Germany. Was the this delivered official through diplomatic channels or like radio propaganda broadcast. If i understand correctly it involved handing over some colonies to germany and retaining a symbolic army/navy Through Hess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
When I learn more about all of that maybe I'll effortpost about it, but right now I don't feel qualified. Arquinsiel posted:"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." - gets stuck at Metz for three months. Patton in a nutshell.  Anyone who's educated in military matters who can think about fortresses without being awed by the intellectual work that went into them has mind problems. Is the 20th century so different from all earlier periods, or is he just wrong?
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:16
|
|
)
|
Trench_Rat posted:after the fall of France the UK was offered an armisitce by Germany. Was the this delivered official through diplomatic channels or like radio propaganda broadcast. If i understand correctly it involved handing over some colonies to germany and retaining a symbolic army/navy Hitler made a peace offer by radio propaganda broadcast on July 19th 1940 but I can't recall his terms. Hess wasn't carrying a peace offer from anyone higher than him in the German government, he hoped to convince the British of coming to the negotiating table somehow. Unsurprisingly, Churchill was unwilling to talk to such a lunatic that didn't even have a real offer with him. E: a travelling HEGEL posted:
The dude that thought he was the reincarnation of a roman legionnaire had mind problems? Get outta here. a travelling HEGEL posted:Is the 20th century so different from all earlier periods, or is he just wrong? Well he's kinda right and kinda wrong. In WW2 if you were relying on a fortress holding out to save your empire, you'd lost the war by that point already and the fort is going to fall eventually. Forts as a strongly defensible position was still true and worked well as seen at Verdun. If Patton had been at Verdun in WW1 he probably wouldn't have said that. E2: as long as you knew how to use forts they were still useful in the 20th century, it's just that Patton and later the French at Dien didn't know how to fort. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
There's not much intellectual work to be done against delay fuzes and such. A decentish modern analogue to old-time fortresses might be stuff like the hardened command facilities and missile silos of the nuclear age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Koesj posted:There's not much intellectual work to be done against delay fuzes and such. Happy non Thanksgiving to everyone living in Europe today, posting on the Internet while the people in America party.  Raskolnikov38 posted:The dude that thought he was the reincarnation of a roman legionnaire had mind problems? Get outta here. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hess wasn't carrying a peace offer from anyone higher than him in the German government, Hess was literally the no.2 in the German Government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Spanish at the advent of the Tercio liked to put dudes in their pike blocks armed with bucklers and swords. These guys disappeared realll early on. Rodeleros existed well before the advent of the Tercio, appearing around the end of the 15th century. Additionally, infiltrating pike blocks isn't the problem, since that is exactly what rodeleros are for, and they did it well. You are also mistaken in thinking rodeleros simply disappeared. Instead their numbers diminished as they were replaced with more arquebusiers who could do much the same job (opening gaps in pike blocks), or by pikemen who could drop their pikes and pick their way through on their own. These rodelas (they are not bucklers, really, but shields strapped to the arm) weighed quite a bit, with one example coming in at nearly 23 kilos, though typically they would weigh closer to 8 or 10, which meant they were expensive, difficult to transport, and we know that the position of 'paje de rodela', or shield bearer, existed for teenage boys in the army, adding one more mouth to feed. The vulnerability of the rodeleros to cavalry was also a major concern. If incorporated entirely within the pike block, which protects them from cavalry but keeps them away from the flanks, they would not provide a major advantage over a parrying dagger since the pikes are all tangled in 'Bad War' or 'the play of pikes' as the Spanish call it. They also would not stop arquebus shot unless they were quite heavy, and need to be heavier still to stop muskets. Still, rodelas appear commonly in assaults, scouting, naval expeditionary combat and tunnel warfare into the 17th c. It is no surprise, therefore, that Achille Marozzo has this image in his Opera Nova in 1546 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
It's not that an impregnable fortress built in the 20th century couldn't stop the enemy army (for a while), it's that it wasn't impregnable. With WW1 experiences in mind, the French built the Maginot line, Germans built the Siegfried line, Soviets built the Stalin line, Finns built the Mannerheim line, etc. They all were breached. Any doctrine based on static WW1-style defenses failed during the war. WW1-style deep trenchlines worked if you lacked quickly reacting motorized reserves - the heavily fortified line gave time for your infantry reserves to reach the hotspots. Likewise if you didn't have adequate anti-tank weapons your infantry could take shelter inside their bunkers and let enemy tanks pass while taking potshots at their supporting infantry (hoping there were no bunker busting tanks). Otherwise you were better off with not getting fixated over any particular position. More particular to the Patton quote, once you knew the location of a fortified position and estimated the thickness of its concrete crest, it was only a matter of arranging an aerial bomb or an artillery shell big enough to breach it. Especially by 1944-45 when all the major armies had ways of destroying or crippling even the thickest pillboxes by direct fire, and radar let you pinpoint the supporting artillery batteries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It's not that an impregnable fortress built in the 20th century couldn't stop the enemy army (for a while), it's that it wasn't impregnable. With WW1 experiences in mind, the French built the Maginot line, Germans built the Siegfried line, Soviets built the Stalin line, Finns built the Mannerheim line, etc. They all were breached. Any doctrine based on static WW1-style defenses failed during the war. WW1-style deep trenchlines worked if you lacked quickly reacting motorized reserves - the heavily fortified line gave time for your infantry reserves to reach the hotspots. Likewise if you didn't have adequate anti-tank weapons your infantry could take shelter inside their bunkers and let enemy tanks pass while taking potshots at their supporting infantry (hoping there were no bunker busting tanks). Otherwise you were better off with not getting fixated over any particular position. That is all well and good if you have those toys, and plenty of time to use them, but that is not always the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That is all well and good if you have those toys, and plenty of time to use them, but that is not always the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Stalingrad was a political exercise so it isn't really fair to bring that up when discussing fortress defensibility. I'd call Kursk a pretty textbook ww1 style defence in depth that worked pretty well. Also the war's largest air battle!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:44
|
|