|
Saint Celestine posted:It wouldn't. Lets take a look at what was transported in terms of raw materials. The most important, would arguably be Tungsten. It was used in all sorts of German equipment, including tungsten cored shells for tanks and guns, increasing the shell's penetration against armor. I recall from mid-war on Tungsten was in such a short supply that Germans dropped the Tungsten (Wolfram) APCR usage as every ounce was needed for machine tools. That would indicate that it did make some difference, except if there were any Tungsten deposits in German occupied Europe, they must have overwhelmed the amount imported from Japan.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The U-boats modified specifically to become transports to Japan could carry about 200-250 tons of cargo. They carried things like dismantled V-1 and V-2 rockets, dismantled Panther tanks, engines, weapons schematics, and occasionally liaison officers between the two nations. It did not really make any difference - the Japanese didn't (couldn't) do anything with the technology that was shared by the Germans. They had blueprints for their own versions of the Me-262 and or the Komet, but those never went into production even if they were derived from stuff shared through the U-boats. I still wonder why they didn't chose to mass produce the Achtacht when the B 29 attacks started. The Mg 42 and the MP40 were also massively superior to whatever Japan was using at the time, and neither of them was particularly difficult to create. The Mg 42 in particular was designed to be very economic for a light machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I still wonder why they didn't chose to mass produce the Achtacht when the B 29 attacks started. The Mg 42 and the MP40 were also massively superior to whatever Japan was using at the time, and neither of them was particularly difficult to create. The Mg 42 in particular was designed to be very economic for a light machine gun. Last ditch Japanese weaponry was far more likely to blow up in the face of whoever used it. It required metallurgy and machining skills an equipment the Japanese just didn't have late in the war. You'd have to adapt for a new cartridge, train your expendable troops to operate one, and then basically hope it all worked. Besides, where will you mount the bayonet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:To put this in some perspective, the US built 2 710 Liberty Ships between 1941 and 1945. At 14 474 tons per ship, that's 39.2 million tons of shipping, or approximately 933 000 tons per month for the 42 months of the war that the US was in. I guess I was wondering more about the tactical side of that fight, not so much "would the Type XXI have won the war for the Nazis" kind of question. I don't know a whole lot about ASW in general and like every other bit of the Wehrmacht the Type XXI seems to have its own violent cult following so I've always found accurate assessments to be hard to come by. That being said, it seems like the XXI was a pretty incredible achievement and, based at least on my limited knowledge of such things, it would have been extremely hard to deal with, especially with effective guided torpedoes. Like, to the point where a Type XXI (or its immediate successors) could still somewhat effectively operate against merchant shipping today. bewbies fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Would the Germans have been more effective if they adopted the naval mine methodology the US deployed against the Japanese?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Would the Germans have been more effective if they adopted the naval mine methodology the US deployed against the Japanese? They'd need long ranged four engined heavy bombers and local air superiority wouldn't they? That seems to have been rather a sticky problem for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
uPen posted:Statements like this are the reason skynet is going to kill us all in 20 years. Luckily economic collapse and mass starvation are going to kill us long before Skynet if we let our military leaders waste expensive hightech-weaponry to such a large amount future historians could call it "space-verdun".
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Hello! Since a lot of attention has been devoted to the Battle of the Atlantic and U-Boat operations recently, I’d like to spend some time talking about US Fleet Boats throughout the Pacific War. Disclaimer: I’m not a historian. I’m not even a history student, I’m just an overenthusiastic nerd who likes subs a whole lot, so if I gently caress anything up please feel free to correct me. Most of this info is coming from Silent Victory by Clay Blair, which while still probably the definitive record of the silent service during the Pacific War, is beginning to show its age a bit in light of certain things like the declassification of ULTRA records and such. And so. As mentioned prior, Unrestricted Submarine Warfare is not the most legal thing, and the use of it in WWI soured the reputation of subs in combat a lot. Granted, this didn’t stop the Germans from recognizing that commerce raiding is one of the few genuinely useful things you can actually do with a contemporary submarine fleet in an era before ballistic and guided missiles, but everyone else kind of stuck to the letter of the law and tooled their sub forces to match. This is perhaps most evident in the US sub force in the years leading to her entrance into the war. The United States sub doctrine revolved around the idea of the “Fleet Boat,” a large, fast submarine with high endurance that could travel with the main fleet and break off for reconnaissance and sneak-attacks on enemy warships. This is exemplified by the prototypical “V-Boats,” which were not actually a discrete class of vessel so much as a diverse line of design experiments that led up to the Gato-class we all know and love today. Conversely, you had the S-Class coastal boats, which were short-ranged and kind of terrible, but much closer in design to the traditional U-Boat model than what the Americans fielded for the majority of the war. The V-Boats weren’t that great either, but a few notable ones pulled their weight during the war. Narwhal (V-5) participated in the defense of Pearl Harbor during the attack, and downed two torpedo bombers on her own, and the prodigious size of many of the V’s made them well-suited to reconnaissance and sneakily depositing commando raids behind enemy lines. The V-Boats weren’t that great at actual sub warfare, though; they were too big and unwieldy, with long dive times and poor underwater maneuverability. The V’s preceded the Porpoise-class (the beginnings of the archetypal “Fleet Boat”), which continued through the Salmon, Sargo, and Tambor classes, each adding incremental improvements to the designs. One of the oft-cited “benefits” to serving on an American boat as opposed to a U-Boat was the inclusion of air conditioning. However, the reality was that the AC in the boats was principally designed to keep dangerous condensation build-up (which could adversely affect the multitude of electronics inside) to a minimum; sub patrols in the far Pacific could be just as miserable as patrols in the Atlantic, with submerged temperatures routinely exceeding 100F. Still, other than the rickety S-Boats, the US sub fleet enjoyed quite a lot of technical sophistication as compared to their German counterparts, again due to “Fleet Boat” doctrine which promoted very high endurance and survivability. Most fleet boats were equipped with primitive air-search (SD) radar from the outset of the war, which was quickly upgraded to much more advanced surface-search (SJ) radar as it became available which gave US boats a spectacular advantage in detection and evasion. Likewise, the American Torpedo Data Computer or TDC was one of the more advanced analog targeting systems in use at the time, having the particular ability to extrapolate a continuous firing solution rather than a static one (ie: when the skipper enters bearing, speed, and heading data for a target, the TDC will continue to adjust the firing solution given the target is moving in a straight line). Furthermore, American subs used a diesel-electric drivetrain for propulsion, as opposed to the more traditional diesel+electric motors of the U-Boats. This meant that an American sub did not have to switch engine linkages when submerging (since the diesel motors only charged the batteries that would drive the propeller shafts), and the engines could run at optimal performance pretty much all the time. In short, the American subs enjoyed a fairly decent technological edge, but it should be stressed that most of this is due to the “Fleet Boat” doctrine, not any inherent US superiority. For instance, as previously mentioned in the thread, the Mk.14 torpedo was famously pathetic and reviled by everyone without a direct connection to BuOrd, and the conning tower design at the beginning of the war, besides looking kind of dopey to begin with, was quickly replaced with a lower-profile design that improved stealth and surface watch visibility. Regardless, the idea of the submarine force operating in tandem with the combined fleet was pretty handily obliterated following the attack on Pearl Harbor. With the battleship fleet in tatters, the value of the submarine as a commerce raiding force became incredibly relevant, and unrestricted submarine warfare was ordered immediately, with Gudgeon (SS-211, Tambor-class) setting out on the first American sub patrol on December 11 (Incidentally, it was the testimony of Chester Nimitz at the Nuremburg war-crimes trial of Grand Admiral Karl Donitz that spared the latter any consequences for his order to do the same during the Battle of the Atlantic; it’s a bit petty to punish someone for something you did yourself with impunity). Despite Fleet Boat doctrine not really having mattered in the long-run, the design of the Fleet Boats ended up working in the United States’ favor anyway, as their high endurance made them particularly well suited to running long-range patrols out of Pearl Harbor. The Asiatic fleet had to make do with the older and shorter-ranged coastal boats, but they eventually received newer Fleet Boats to replace the well-worn S-Boats as the war progressed. Of course, as also mentioned previously in the thread, the US sub force was kind of crap until around mid-1943. This was for a multitude of reasons, most visibly the horrifically bad Mk.14 torpedo, but there were other things going on as well. For one, COMSUBPAC (Robert English) handed out very schizophrenic orders to sub skippers during this time, stressing stealth and caution (sub command at the time was very paranoid about Japanese destroyer and aircraft ASW capabilities, a concern later proven to be unfounded), while at the same time admonishing skippers who came home empty-handed for not being aggressive enough. In fact, during this time, there was something like a 30% washout rate for timid and overcautious sub skippers, and the Japanese didn’t bother improving their ASW tech due in part to the unimpressive performance of US subs at this time. This overcautiousness manifested in a few ways that in hindsight one could consider absurd. For example, attack doctrine at the time prohibited periscope targeting (!), as even that was feared to potentially compromise a submarine’s stealth. Instead, skippers were told to make torpedo attacks from below periscope depth through sonar reckoning alone, with predictably dismal results. Likewise, BuOrd was so overprotective of their awful Mk.14s that some crews ended up intentionally (and illegally) disabling the Mk.6 exploder, as well as inflating tonnage numbers on their patrol reports to account for higher torpedo use. Eventually, a lot of these problems were addressed primarily when COMSUBPAC was transferred to Charles Lockwood (by merit of English dying in a plane crash), who immediately begin trimming out mediocre skippers and replacing them with much more aggressive commanders (as opposed to the timid sonar targeting earlier, skippers began routinely attacking from the surface, sometimes even trading gunfire with patrol boats). Likewise, Lockwood hounded BuOrd to unfuck the Mk.14 and the Mk.6 exploder that was causing so many otherwise good skippers to come back empty handed, which ended up turning the rightfully-maligned Mk.14 into an actually decent weapon by war’s end. All of this combined with the Japanese inability to provide adequate ASW solutions to combat the silent service ended up making the sub force particularly deadly from 1943 onward, with American submarines sinking close to half the entire Japanese merchant fleet and severing their supply lines to Southeast Asia, as well as scoring some pretty impressive kills against Japanese warships. A particularly notable one is the sinking of the supercarrier Shinano by the USS Archer-Fish (SS-311, Balao-class), literally six hours after the carrier launched on her first deployment, which remains the largest vessel ever sunk by a submarine. The silent service, combined with Operation Starvation's airborne mining ops, essentially strangled the home islands by the end of the war. Uh, that’s about all I’ve got. Submarine action in the Pacific was pretty wildly different from the Atlantic flavor, mostly due to differences in doctrine and belligerent capabilities. Unlike the allies who greatly prioritized ASW to the point where German sub crews in the later war could measure their lifespan in weeks, the IJN never really improved their anti-sub doctrines, and paid for it dearly. Which isn’t to say that US sub crews lived in luxury compared to their counterparts, sub service in either theater was going to be miserable either way. One of my favorite “fun” facts about the not-very-good S-Boats was that they had cork lining for insulation within the inner hull. This and the fact that they went into service prior to the introduction of air conditioning meant that during even moderately long patrols, the crew soon found themselves serving alongside a veritable army of cockroaches. 3 fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I recall from mid-war on Tungsten was in such a short supply that Germans dropped the Tungsten (Wolfram) APCR usage as every ounce was needed for machine tools. That would indicate that it did make some difference, except if there were any Tungsten deposits in German occupied Europe, they must have overwhelmed the amount imported from Japan. Right. That's pretty much why I consider it the most important of all the materiel being transported from Asia to Germany. It was used in both the German war machine, as well as on the battlefield. Not enough made it over. But, in an alternate world where the submarine lifeline started much earlier and in greater numbers, you could hand-wave a world where the German war machine had enough Tungsten so they started equipping their armies with APCR rounds. Combined with enough Molybdenum for armor, and you could feasibly have entire Panzer divisions that could hit harder and at longer ranges as well as having armor that didnt shatter on the first hit. None of the other materiels transported would have made as big an impact. It may have a small tactical effect, but certainly wouldn't affect the overall course of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
space pope posted:"Iron Coffins" by Herbert Werner does a really good job of capturing this change. He was one of the very few U-boat captains who made it all the way through the war. By the end of the book he's crash-diving to escape a plane or destroyer several times a day. Awesome sub posts but just wanted to pass on that it looks like Werner had some pretty serious factual issues in his memoir. Granted this is based on some fast google searches that largely boil down to an uber spergy dude on a sub forum but didn't see much push back. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1353017&postcount=1
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I still wonder why they didn't chose to mass produce the Achtacht when the B 29 attacks started. The Mg 42 and the MP40 were also massively superior to whatever Japan was using at the time, and neither of them was particularly difficult to create. The Mg 42 in particular was designed to be very economic for a light machine gun. Military equipment isn't produced in RTS conditions where somebody can hand over a blue-print and have a whole factory spitting out Flak 36s by the end of the day. I did some wiki research, and apparently , the Japanese did make a copy of a (different) German 88mm AA gun. The real issue for the Japanese is the production numbers that they achieve, with their main AA weaponry rounding out at like 3,000 units. Their total production of artillery pieces is 13,000, with is about 4 times less than Canada's. You're also discounting operational differences between the two armies of Germany and Japan, as well as ammunition sizes, and maybe a million different things in the procurement process. An MG42, heavy and a notorious ammunition hog, wouldn't be useful in poorly supplied jungles and islands. The MP40 would be useless in the Pacific, it jammed easily with dirt and mud. The 88 would also have been powerless against the B-29. They flew too high to be hit with 88mm flak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:
B-29s were certainly CAPABLE of operating out if the reach of 88mm flak, but after LeMay assumed command, and changed tactics, the raids were going in much lower. On the topic of the Type XXI, significant numbers of them would have been a great shock to allied ASW. It wouldn't have won the war, but ASW would have had to evolve even faster in order to cope with it. The sustained submerged speed of the type XXI alone drastically reduced the effectiveness of depth charges and hedgehogs, the primary ASW weapons of the time. The XXIs were a generational leap in submarine capability not to be seen again until the Nautilus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Let me again recommend The Third Battle (pdf), a Naval War College paper which primarily traces the development of US anti-submarine efforts during the Cold War, but serves as a great primer on post-WWII sub development as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Germany definitely would have had a greater chance at winning the war if they had only allocated more of their Industrial Capacity points into producing more infantry divisions and uboats instead of heavy tank brigades. They would have also been wise to reduce the expenditure they put into Consumer Goods, leaving only a bare minimum to ensure they remained at 0.00% dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
As any Grand Admiral worth his salt knows that fleets of thirty cruisers are the most efficient way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
3 posted:Fleet boats in the Pacific! This was a great post, thanks for making it. Fangz posted:Would the Germans have been more effective if they adopted the naval mine methodology the US deployed against the Japanese? The naval mine method worked in conjunction with everything else that the US was doing. If we created a scenario where Nazi Germany had a bunch of B-29s to drop mines all around England with and U-boats to do the same, you might still see an outcome where the British just sweeps the mines. The mining of the Japanese Home Islands worked so well because the Japanese were depleted of oil, depleted of minesweepers, depleted of all kinds of ships, really, which meant that any mines that were laid down were never going to be removed (except unintentionally, once  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Germany definitely would have had a greater chance at winning the war if they had only allocated more of their Industrial Capacity points into producing more infantry divisions and uboats instead of heavy tank brigades. They would have also been wise to reduce the expenditure they put into Consumer Goods, leaving only a bare minimum to ensure they remained at 0.00% dissent. You joke , but the raw materials quotas for the heer , kriegsamarine and lufftwaffe worked almost like that, moving around percentages of millions of tons of steel to some part or another,some years stopping your ammunition production and diverting the raw materials to your tanks productions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:B-29s were certainly CAPABLE of operating out if the reach of 88mm flak, but after LeMay assumed command, and changed tactics, the raids were going in much lower. Yes, LeMay had them going lower, but switching from high explosive to incendiary bombs was the biggest change. If the AAA started causing problems, they'd just go to an altitude they're safer at, the incendiaries don't care if they're dropped from 8000 or 30,000 ft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
They are going lower, but lower at night. I don't see any strong reasons why duplicated 88's would be more effective than any other AAA capability. Any improvement they might have over existing Japanese AAA would be a longer range. German flak certainly did not stop allied bombers from laying waste to Dresden etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:They'd need long ranged four engined heavy bombers and local air superiority wouldn't they? That seems to have been rather a sticky problem for them. You don't really need 'long range' if you're trying to mine the Channel from bases in France. It's like two miles across. Dead right on the 'air superiority' thing, though, and relatedly 'sea superiority' in order to prevent minesweepers doing their thing - the US had more or less knocked the IJN out of commission by the end of the war, that was never more than a pipedream for the Germans and would have been damned hard even if they'd had air superiority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Fat Twitter Man posted:There are a couple of historical records from the POV of the Sea Peoples. An epic poem which was written down a few centuries later and survives to this day details the Akhaioi, a bunch of pirates and raiders, destroying and plundering the Hittite city of Wilusa. There are also first-person accounts by some of the Shasu nomads who overran the Egyptian province of Canaan and destroyed most of its cities. I was under the impression we didn't even know for sure who the Sea Peoples were. What language were these accounts written in? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You don't really need 'long range' if you're trying to mine the Channel from bases in France. It's like two miles across. Well, escorting bombers over the channel would have been easier/more fair than escorting them over the UK mainland, at least. I suppose the timeframe I have in mind for this would be approximately during the Battle of Britain. Not sure how effective minesweeping operations would have been in contested airspace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I was under the impression we didn't even know for sure who the Sea Peoples were. What language were these accounts written in? innsmouth.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
A heads up for interested WWII MilHist goons, they're making a movie of Laura Hillenbrand's Unbroken , looks to be out at the end of the year. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809398/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
This tank museum has a virtual tour set up, including the ability to pop into the driver's or commander's seat and take a look around the inside of the tank. Definitely worth checking out, even if not all the interiors are complete.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
It's probably worth noting that the Germans did try offensive aerial mining, but it didn't end up as effective as the US operations against Japan mostly because they could never stop the Brits from sweeping the mines. And magnetic mines (which the Germans saw as a sort of secret weapon) can be sweeped with airplanes. The biggest success that the Germans had was that they managed to lay enough mines to shut down Soviet movement in the Finnish Gulf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This tank museum has a virtual tour set up, including the ability to pop into the driver's or commander's seat and take a look around the inside of the tank. Definitely worth checking out, even if not all the interiors are complete. They have an operational Stug IV, though (if Wikipedia is anywhere near accurate, it might be the only one in the world). I really want to visit the place, because the Stug life chose me. Funny thing is that if you're a foreigner you have to tell them a month in advance that you're planning to show up, because the museum is technically on military ground. EDIT: drat, that Sdkfz.6 looks awfully comfy. Tevery Best fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I was under the impression we didn't even know for sure who the Sea Peoples were. What language were these accounts written in? They were oral histories, eventually recorded in Greek. The modern names for them are ”the Iliad” and ”The Odyssey”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:They were oral histories, eventually recorded in Greek. The modern names for them are ”the Iliad” and ”The Odyssey”. I'm going to go ahead and say it's a hell of a stretch to say that the Iliad is definitely the same as a first-hand account of the Sea Peoples as recorded in ancient Egyptian history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I wonder if it was some kind of coincidence that a handful of cultures from all over that corner of the Med decided to run sailing raids and it's just a fluke of a historical blind spot that the cultures doing the raiding aren't represented in the record for one reason or another (maybe they wrote everything on wood or something) You would be amazed how much wasn't written down by ancient cultures, at least not that survived to us. We have zilch from ancient Carthage, for instance, a civilised and hegenomic trading power of its time, let alone random sea raiders. Hell, we have very little from the pagan Viking era and that was centuries and centuries later. We have a tiny fraction available to us of what was ever written down in the ancient world, in an era in which far far fewer people knew how to write than today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
The literate Late Bronze Age civilizations actually wrote down quite a lot (not as much as we'd like, but that's not really an achievable goal), but yeah, nearly all of it is lost to history. The Sea People and Bronze Age Collapse were more than 3000 years ago; that anything at all survives that long is pretty remarkable. And they weren't "random sea raiders". They completely broke down Mycenaean Greece, the Hittites, and permanently crippled Egypt right after what was pretty much its zenith. The reason there aren't many records of them is because there was nobody around to make any. (  ) I'm only half exaggerating. In any case they were important.And Carthage isn't really a fair example; the Romans made a pretty concerted effort to expunge them from history. sullat posted:They were oral histories, eventually recorded in Greek. The modern names for them are ”the Iliad” and ”The Odyssey”. um
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm going to go ahead and say it's a hell of a stretch to say that the Iliad is definitely the same as a first-hand account of the Sea Peoples as recorded in ancient Egyptian history. Yeah, I assume he was being facetious when claiming that the Iliad, Odyssey, and Torah were all examples of Sea People writings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
But aren't the events they depict around the same time period? The wikipedia page on the Sea People's suggests some Greek groups may have been one of the Sea Peoples. I mean obviously Homer wasn't one of the Sea Peoples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And they weren't "random sea raiders". They completely broke down Mycenaean Greece, the Hittites, and permanently crippled Egypt right after what was pretty much its zenith. The reason there aren't many records of them is because there was nobody around to make any. ( I'm not saying they weren't important; that wasn't very well phrased, I agree. I am saying we have no reason to think they were literate. You don't need to be literate to gently caress literate people over. Edit: and if we're talking about Mycenae, to name one bronze age civilisation, yes, they did write down quite a lot, but it was like 'received by the temple: 100 oxen, 50 jars of olive oil'. Not, like, useful stuff/poems/first-hand accounts of military anything. Egypt and the Near East in general are somewhat different, of course. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Mustang posted:But aren't the events they depict around the same time period? The wikipedia page on the Sea People's suggests some Greek groups may have been one of the Sea Peoples. May have been. We don't know poo poo. That the Iliad is based on the reality of Bronze Age Greece is only a supposition based on the names of the Greek groups mentioned within it. We don't even know what century Homer wrote in for sure or even if he even actually existed, though most people seem to believe he post-dated the actual bronze age and was writing about what were only legends/ancient history in his own era. We are in no position to impute even faintly, vaguely, something in the region of 'the Iliad may have perhaps been referring to the same people as those the ancient Egyptians called the Sea Peoples'. We just don't have the evidence to be sure. Welcome to the ancient world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Does anyone have a book recommendation for a biography of Napolean? Preferably something that covers the whole period, and doesn't assume you already know what was going on at the time. Which I don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Does anyone have a book recommendation for a biography of Napolean? Preferably something that covers the whole period, and doesn't assume you already know what was going on at the time. Which I don't. Holy poo poo I just came hear to ask about a book covering the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars ... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Don't you dare fix that spelling. It's thread appropriate. There's some evidence behind it, Egypt survived the collapse and had some records of the names of the tribes that made up the 'Sea Peoples' who weren't so much an organized force as they were wandering tribes. For example the Pelest could have easily become the Palestinians etc Now we don't know what started the whole thing off but in my opinion it was probably something similar to the steppe nomads pouring out into China or Europe every time there's ecological trouble or one tribe starts chasing another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
My boyfriend said you'd get better range from a weed-trebuchet. Who's right?Capt. Morgan posted:In Dec. 2012, a pneumatic cannon was used to launch dozens of containers of marijuana over the border and 500 feet into in a plowed field just northwest of San Luis. Around two pounds of marijuana were packed into each container and the marijuana had an estimated value of $42,500.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/3000/most-powerful-trebuchet-%28with-projectile-weight-of-1-20-kg%29 Trebuchet, obviously!  1,193 feet
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 10:17
|
|