|
The Entire Universe posted:I had the hilarious thought of Kitchener showing up in full uniform regalia, leaning in and pointing at French's face like the propaganda posters, and saying "I WANT YOU TO STOP BEING SUCH A FUCKUP." The only account we have of that closed-door meeting between French and Kitchener was French's, and his was a cover-your-rear end recollection, so as far as we know your scenario is entirely plausible 
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Kitchener did in fact show up to that meeting in full uniform. Also French wanted to loving retreat to St. Nazaire to disembark from France 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:The First World War was traumatic enough to scar the art and literature of Europe right up until a worse war came along and pretty much made pacifism a mainstream political movement, so I'm feeling that there's a bit of nostalgia for the GOOD OLD DAYS OF EMPIRE At least in England, a lot of that art and literature was written by upper class sons of privilege who'd spent the prewar years listening to nothing more violent than their servants cutting meat in the kitchens of their manor houses. Except when shooting partridges or going on fox hunts, I suppose. Meanwhile, the "lower classes" who lived four families to a tiny tenement house in the East End with holes the floor and no heating beyond burnt newspapers found trench warfare much less traumatic for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Kitchener did in fact show up to that meeting in full uniform. The gently caress? St. Nazaire? Really? If I didn't know this was WW1, it sounds like hes running from the German advance of 1940. Edit: The gently caress was wrong with him? Was he just going to march the entire Army clear across France? And why St. Nazaire? Cherbourg or La Havre is much closer. None of this makes any sense. 
Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:At least in England, a lot of that art and literature was written by upper class sons of privilege who'd spent the prewar years listening to nothing more violent than their servants cutting meat in the kitchens of their manor houses. Except when shooting partridges or going on fox hunts, I suppose. This is absurd. When it rains in London, it doesn't come with shells
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This is absurd. When it rains in London, it doesn't come with shells That argument reminds me of that piece of British nonfiction writing where the author looks into the eyes of a young woman poking a stick up a frozen drain in some godforsaken area of London and he says that it's not the case that these people don't know enough to suffer and therefore don't need socialism, they're still suffering even though suffering is all they've ever known. Was that Orwell? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This is absurd. When it rains in London, it doesn't come with shells I said less traumatic, not a happy puppy parade. Also I don't think either of you realize just how lovely housing for the poor and working class was in prewar Britain. Like those stories about holes in the floor are from government reports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I said less traumatic, not a happy puppy parade. It's also possible that the poorer WW1 veterans didn't write about their traumatic experiences because they were less literate, or less used to using writing in an introspective manner. That doesn't have to mean that they didn't suffer, or even didn't suffer as much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Physical privation and facing down the immediate prospect of getting killed aren't the same thing. Oh that's certainly possible, and I didn't claim only the rich suffered (which anyone who read All Quiet on the Western Front in high school would know is laughable). Just that, at least in the British case, the war novels and poems that make up "war literature" is almost entirely about officers suffering horrible things while the "lower ranks" are often described as not being nearly as effected by it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Oh that's certainly possible, and I didn't claim only the rich suffered (which anyone who read All Quiet on the Western Front in high school would know is laughable). Just that, at least in the British case, the war novels and poems that make up "war literature" is almost entirely about officers suffering horrible things while the "lower ranks" are often described as not being nearly as effected by it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:I wanted to get the thread's opinion on a recent BBC column trying to debunk myths about WWI, by the historian Dan Snow: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836 That article is a bit simplistic but it is hardly outlandish to note there were a lot of soldiers who enjoyed the experience. There's always been a pretty large contingent of people who enjoy combat/soldiering and so on in every era and in every war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:That argument reminds me of that piece of British nonfiction writing where the author looks into the eyes of a young woman poking a stick up a frozen drain in some godforsaken area of London and he says that it's not the case that these people don't know enough to suffer and therefore don't need socialism, they're still suffering even though suffering is all they've ever known. Was that Orwell? Road to Wigan Pier, great book. Orwell spends about half the length just talking about the crazy poo poo that people come up with to blame the poor and unemployed for their own troubles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That article is a bit simplistic but it is hardly outlandish to note there were a lot of soldiers who enjoyed the experience. There's always been a pretty large contingent of people who enjoy combat/soldiering and so on in every era and in every war. "Frankly I had enjoyed the war." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The gently caress? St. Nazaire? Really? If I didn't know this was WW1, it sounds like hes running from the German advance of 1940. Welcome to the world of Sir John "pee pee, doo doo, he is a bad general" French.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:"Frankly I had enjoyed the war." There's also the less-remembered Walter "Tich" Cowan, a First World War RN flag officer who joined a Commando unit in World War Two (in his seventies) and was captured by the Italians while trying to fight a tank with his service revolver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Welcome to the world of Sir John "pee pee, doo doo, he is a bad general" French. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:There's also the less-remembered Walter "Tich" Cowan, a First World War RN flag officer who joined a Commando unit in World War Two (in his seventies) and was captured by the Italians while trying to fight a tank with his service revolver. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:There's also the less-remembered Walter "Tich" Cowan, a First World War RN flag officer who joined a Commando unit in World War Two (in his seventies) and was captured by the Italians while trying to fight a tank with his service revolver. See while the US military has its own brand of crazy in battle and service, the UK just had this really bizarre strain of "oh jolly good lets go blow something up before the war ends" "and must get back the war might soon" cheerful crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Can we go back to that line about living conditions being better than civvy life even in WWI? I mean, if the guy's talking about life in the trenches then he's obviously full of poo poo (tried to read the article twice but the Beeb's site seems to crash this crappy laptop), but wasn't there a huge logistical tail behind the front? I would not be surprised if even enlisted men were doing better than otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Can we go back to that line about living conditions being better than civvy life even in WWI? I mean, if the guy's talking about life in the trenches then he's obviously full of poo poo (tried to read the article twice but the Beeb's site seems to crash this crappy laptop), but wasn't there a huge logistical tail behind the front? I would not be surprised if even enlisted men were doing better than otherwise. Well, that and units were rotated to and from the front so usually they didn't spend much time rotting in the trenches. Stealing this from Wikipedia: quote:On an individual level, a typical British soldier's year could be divided as follows:
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Here's something: I picture that in any given war between nation-states, of the officially recognised combat forces (so not guerillas, espionage agents etc), there is a percentage of actual combatants who shoot guns/fly planes/ride horses and so on, and then a much larger number of people who do behind the scenes stuff like logistics, communications and so on. Does anyone know how that ratio has evolved over time? I picture that prior to gunpowder the logistics side of things was comparatively small because an army could just cruise around foraging for itself and was mostly self-sufficient. Contrast that to today, where a single american soldier deployed in the middle east has an absolutely enormous 'support staff' making it possible for him to have boots on the ground at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Here's something: I picture that in any given war between nation-states, of the officially recognised combat forces (so not guerillas, espionage agents etc), there is a percentage of actual combatants who shoot guns/fly planes/ride horses and so on, and then a much larger number of people who do behind the scenes stuff like logistics, communications and so on. That is pretty much spot on. The big problem with pre-industrialized logistics is that your supplies would really only travel about as fast as your army, so that meant regular resupply was only really possible in one situation: siege warfare. Especially since foraging means that a country is very quickly stripped of its foodstuffs, and sieges require you to stay in the same spot for a long time. With industrialized warfare, logistics and support became more involved, and with the increased mechanization of warfare, this only grew more pronounced. There was actually a move backwards in the last few years, with logistics being handed over to private contractors (just like it was in the Early Modern Times). And lots of talk about improving the teeth:tail ratio. A good, if incredibly dry, read about it is Martin Van Creveld's Supplying War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:A good, if incredibly dry, read about it is Martin Van Creveld's Supplying War. quote:That is pretty much spot on. The big problem with pre-industrialized logistics is that your supplies would really only travel about as fast as your army, so that meant regular resupply was only really possible in one situation: siege warfare. Especially since foraging means that a country is very quickly stripped of its foodstuffs, and sieges require you to stay in the same spot for a long time. quote:There was actually a move backwards in the last few years, with logistics being handed over to private contractors (just like it was in the Early Modern Times). HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Doppeldrones?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Pre-industrialized logistics had the issue of being vulnerable as heck, too, since if you tried to resupply or reinforce, you probably had to do it with all the eggs in one basket. For instance, in the Great Northern War, Charles XII tried to resupply his army that was cruising around Russia but the end result was that the corps that were bringing the supplies got beat by the Russians in the Battle of Lesnaya and as a result, no supplies ever got to the main army. Instead they got 6000 hungry mouths to feed and the surly general Adam Ludwig Lewenhaupt who later surrendered the entire army to Peter the Great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Logistics is always the weak point, always. That was why Wallenstein was such a good general--it wasn't his grasp of tactics or anything, he only took the field once or twice as the Generalissimo. It was because his ability to procure goods and raise money was flat spooky. He may have been the best least bad logistician of his age. (It's partially because he was the largest landowner in Bohemia.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
One of my favorite things in the 30YW is about Gallas going to Pomerania to drive out the Swedes and he ends up sieging something like three half-abandoned forts that have a few dozen Swedes in them, almost all of them half dead from malnutrition and disease. Because apparently someone hadn't really given a poo poo about the whole "maybe our garrisons should have like, food and stuff"-thing. And then Gallas ends up losing anyway because half his army drops dead because Pomerania was a wasteland with no food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:"Frankly I had enjoyed the war." That man is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Doppeldrones? Powerpoint-Landsknechten  Oh god I'm going all out on the China thread in D&D 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:(It's partially because he was the largest landowner in Bohemia.) The largest landowner, and his land was notoriously shielded from harm, and was granted a number of privileges - it was protected against foraging and wintering of armies, granted an absolution from taxes and de facto independence from royal authority. His duchy contained forges, textile workshops and granaries, and while it was known as "terra felix", Wallenstein was a demanding businessman who didn't let his peasants idle - he enforced a strict new organization of labor which supposedly led to a triple increase in productivity compared to similar guild-run enterprises. Plus he could rely on the Emperor transferring seized property to him in attempt to amortize court's outstanding debt towards him. He was basically a major owner of government bonds, which made him a trustworthy and preferred business partner when procuring supplies outside of his own territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That is pretty much spot on. The big problem with pre-industrialized logistics is that your supplies would really only travel about as fast as your army, so that meant regular resupply was only really possible in one situation: siege warfare. Especially since foraging means that a country is very quickly stripped of its foodstuffs, and sieges require you to stay in the same spot for a long time. With industrialized warfare, logistics and support became more involved, and with the increased mechanization of warfare, this only grew more pronounced. There was actually a move backwards in the last few years, with logistics being handed over to private contractors (just like it was in the Early Modern Times). And lots of talk about improving the teeth:tail ratio. A good, if incredibly dry, read about it is Martin Van Creveld's Supplying War. And this is why my eyes roll out of my loving skull every time someone talks about Starship Troopers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:And this is why my eyes roll out of my loving skull every time someone talks about Starship Troopers. steinrokkan posted:The largest landowner, and his land was notoriously shielded from harm, and was granted a number of privileges - it was protected against foraging and wintering of armies, granted an absolution from taxes and de facto independence from royal authority. His duchy contained forges, textile workshops and granaries, and while it was known as "terra felix", Wallenstein was a demanding businessman who didn't let his peasants idle - he enforced a strict new organization of labor which supposedly led to a triple increase in productivity compared to similar guild-run enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Logistics is always the weak point, always. That was why Wallenstein was such a good general--it wasn't his grasp of tactics or anything, he only took the field once or twice as the Generalissimo. It was because his ability to procure goods and raise money was flat spooky. He may have been the best least bad logistician of his age. (It's partially because he was the largest landowner in Bohemia.) Apparently he managed to keep an army of 24000 in the field, which was a lot for that time. In contrast, Johan Baner was constantly struggling to keep his army of 5000 fed, which he basically did by pillaging his way through Germany while avoiding enemy troops. The Swedish involvement in the 30y war and the aftermath is a mixture of amazing and weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I last read that book as a literal child so I don't remember what the issue here is. I think it's the implication that the power-suited "Mobile Infantry" could ever be a model for future armies. Unless you plan on drop-shipping a force at every single point to apprehend the entire enemy force in one go, every engagement would just turn into Operation Market-Garden. That's my interpretation anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I last read that book as a literal child so I don't remember what the issue here is. I think he's referring to the part where everyone fights at the frontlines, even the generals, and there are no designated personnel in the logistics. Still, it's not even the silliest part in that book. How large is the teeth:tail ratio say, in US forces in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I think he's referring to the part where everyone fights at the frontlines, even the generals, and there are no designated personnel in the logistics. Still, it's not even the silliest part in that book. Ridiculous, given that if you want to be really pedantic the tail goes all the way back to the guys making the bullets/rations in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think it's the implication that the power-suited "Mobile Infantry" could ever be a model for future armies. Unless you plan on drop-shipping a force at every single point to apprehend the entire enemy force in one go, every engagement would just turn into Operation Market-Garden. There's a bit about how "Everyone Fights" where they have a laugh at how old armies had such large support/logistics tails but the good old MI give the priest and cook rifles and blast them down to the surface too. For what its worth we're talking about a space-future that whipped faster than light travel and didnt even talk about logistics, so maybe they've just got big meat lockers on their spaceman spaceships that they top off in port? (E: goddamnit refresh the page before you post dummy..) AutoArgus fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:He may have been the best least bad logistician of his age. (It's partially because he was the largest landowner in Bohemia.) Shhhhh  the Ottomans would like you to acknowledge their legendary logistic skills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Shhhhh HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
It's something that I came across recently. First, hungarian nobles complain to the Kriegsrat in Vienna that scorched earth tactics don't work against the Ottomans. On another occasion, I read the dates how fast Suleyman the Magnificient moves against Belgrade. He sets out from Edirne with +100.000 men and over 200 pieces of artillery and reaches Belgrade within a few weeks.  He failed to take it, but nonetheless. Btw, there's a short chapter in Majoros, Ferenc (2000): Das Osmanische Reich where he mentiones that Wallenstein almost ended up having battle with a Beylerbey that was looking to exploit the disorder in the Empire. Spoiler: nothing happens, because both leaders worry about the strength of the enemy and the weakness of their own position. So both disengage during the night. Apparently Wallenstein was worried about the size of the enemy's cavalry, while the turk thought the Imperial Infantry superior to his own. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 13:09
|
|