|
a travelling HEGEL posted:That and a satire on fascism/toxic masculinity/toxic fascist masculinity, which means it's really great that those are things the fanbase is into.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
The Ethiopian-Somalian War. 1) Why did the Soviets decide to go with the Ethiopians when they risked (and did) losing their major Indian Ocean naval base in Somalia? 2) In the absence of the Soviet-Cuban intervention, did the Somalians have a good chance of retaking the Ogaden and negotiating a settlement? 3) Was the Somalian defeat the beginning of the spiral leading to the current situation, or had it already started before the war? 4) Was the Derg/Mengistu actually Communist or was it just opportunism to continue getting Soviet aid? 5) What was the Cuban motivation for sending combat troops (and in Angola for that matter)? PR/actual ideological support, or the hope of later economic concessions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
When did armies stop doing poo poo like 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' and start offering elements enough leeway in objectives to not knowingly ride straight into a massacre? I know communication fuckups still happen (and probably will always happen) but was there ever a point where armies were reformed so that comms fuckups like that don't end up in a whole brigade getting annihilated because nobody was able to say 'how about we flank them instead of charging at their muzzles?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:When did armies stop doing poo poo like 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' and start offering elements enough leeway in objectives to not knowingly ride straight into a massacre? I know communication fuckups still happen (and probably will always happen) but was there ever a point where armies were reformed so that comms fuckups like that don't end up in a whole brigade getting annihilated because nobody was able to say 'how about we flank them instead of charging at their muzzles?' Since the beginning of time. No bout seriously, histories is not this uniform procession from 'good' to 'bad' that everyone moves along in lock step. Subcommanders being given more or less independence in the overall picture is a thing that changes from army to army and general to general. In fact it is highly dependent on the personality of the commanding officer (obsessive and overbearing? weak and indecisive?) and the subcommander (headstrong and arrogant? dull and unimaginative?). So... yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Did the Soviets or any of their allies/client states ever get to use their heavy bombers in a combat situation? Anything from their copy of the B-29 to their Backfire bombers. For that matter, what did they use the TB-3 and Pe-8's for in WW2? I know that they never really pursued a strategic bombing campaign against Germany, but they apparently produced 818 of the former and 93 of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did the Soviets or any of their allies/client states ever get to use their heavy bombers in a combat situation? Anything from their copy of the B-29 to their Backfire bombers. Yes. They used the Backfire in Afghanistan, in a similar role to the B-52 in Vietnam. Also against Georgia in 2008; granted, that's post-Soviet Russia, but with Soviet era equipment. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did the Soviets or any of their allies/client states ever get to use their heavy bombers in a combat situation? Anything from their copy of the B-29 to their Backfire bombers. Calling the Backfire a heavy bomber puts you squarely in the 1970s team B camp of wanting to have them count towards strategic weapons in SALT negotiations. Egyptian Tu-16s were mostly bombed themselves in '67 and kept way back in '73, they did operate against Libya in 1977 IIRC. The Libyans themselves flew the Tu-22 with middling results in both Tanzania and Chad. Yes, supersonic bombers in Africa. Iraq used the Tu-22 a lot against Iran, you can read about it (as well as the Libyans' shenanigans) on wiki. The bomber version of the Tu-95 was never exported but the Indian Navy flies the new MPA variant, they're also the only country outside the former Soviet bloc (or rather Russia and Ukraine) that's in line to operate the Tu-22M3Ms, but I don't think those are in service as of yet. e: Oh and I believe a number of Libyan Tu-22s were destroyed during the Toyota War Ouadi Doum raid. Koesj fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:For that matter, what did they use the TB-3 and Pe-8's for in WW2? I know that they never really pursued a strategic bombing campaign against Germany, but they apparently produced 818 of the former and 93 of the latter. Russian pre-war heavy bombers turned out to be too slow for effective use in other than night bombing roles and for most part ADD (Long Distance Aviation) relied on two-engine bombers like DB-3/Il-4, B-25 and A-20. Notably TB-3 motherships carrying I-16's were used to bomb Romanian targets in autumn of 1941.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Three posters, twenty minutes, answers. This thread 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Since the beginning of time. Right, but you can generally point to August 1945 and say that's the dawn of the atomic age, even though there are people out there still looking to join the Bomb Club. Even if you're looking at a timeframe (1945-1990) for something like the rise and fall of MAD, that's still a set of brackets you can justifiably place. I'm just wondering when doctrine transitioned from being all about poo poo like charging guns on horses and started being "this is what I want you to do by this time" - I'm guessing that was during the interwar years of the 20th century but if there's writing on this being a thing during the trench warfare of WWI I'd love to get my hands on that. I'm interested in that evolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Doctrine was never about "charging guns on horses". Noone ever thought charging guns with horses was a sweet idea that will totally work; that wasn't the 'on paper' purpose of cavalry at any time. Incidents like that were purely the result of incompetence, delusion and ignorance of the tactical situation. Messengers have been used to (mostly) accurately convey orders and conduct complex troop movements for centuries, not since just the invention of the radio/telegraph/gunpowder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Right, but you can generally point to August 1945 and say that's the dawn of the atomic age, even though there are people out there still looking to join the Bomb Club. Even if you're looking at a timeframe (1945-1990) for something like the rise and fall of MAD, that's still a set of brackets you can justifiably place. I'm just wondering when doctrine transitioned from being all about poo poo like charging guns on horses and started being "this is what I want you to do by this time" - I'm guessing that was during the interwar years of the 20th century but if there's writing on this being a thing during the trench warfare of WWI I'd love to get my hands on that. I'm interested in that evolution. But those aren't brackets that you can justifiably place. Whose doctrine was it to charge guns on horses anyway? e;f;b
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Wow, thanks guys, that was a really fast response! How about this: could a Phalanx CIWS have destroyed the Japanese strikes against the USS Yorktown in June 1942? No, that's a joke, you don't have to answer that  Koesj posted:Calling the Backfire a heavy bomber puts you squarely in the 1970s team B camp of wanting to have them count towards strategic weapons in SALT negotiations. Oh shucks, yeah, that was just me not really thinking about my phrasing and playing fast and loose with the term 'heavy bomber'. I guess they do have more in common with the Aardvark, don't they? (BTW your Cold War effort-posts rock, including the one you made in the D&D modern symmetrical war thread) The Entire Universe posted:I'm just wondering when doctrine transitioned from being all about poo poo like charging guns on horses and started being "this is what I want you to do by this time" - I'm guessing that was during the interwar years of the 20th century but if there's writing on this being a thing during the trench warfare of WWI I'd love to get my hands on that. I'm interested in that evolution. Specifically with regards to "dudes on horses", there were already commanders as early as in the American Civil War that realized/acknowledged that it was better to use cavalry simply as "infantry that could mount horses to ride quickly to a spot, but they will fight dismounted". There were individual French commanders in WWI that realized this, but at the same time the German Uhlans still did some of their fighting on horseback and with lances. It really depended, and AFAIK the shift didn't really become doctrinal until horses were replaced by trucks and half-tracks and tanks altogether. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did the Soviets or any of their allies/client states ever get to use their heavy bombers in a combat situation? Anything from their copy of the B-29 to their Backfire bombers. Before they lost the Crimea they did do some bombing raids into Romania from Sevastopol hitting oil production and some pipelines and bridges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I'm sorta late to diesel fires chat but this here video has a bunch of examples of such things (remember to enable English captions if you don't understand spoken Swedish): Hahahahahahahaha: "For safety reasons, no crew members have been present inside the tank during the trials (in which we shoot it repeatedly)."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Chopstix posted:Can anyone recommend any books on rationing? I've read "Salt", which was great, but was more interested in how rationing worked and nutrition for like, long sea voyages, canned food during Napolean's time, stuff like that. Feeding Nelson's Navy: The True Story of Food at Sea in the Georgian Era Food in the American Military: A History Rations of the German Wehrmacht in World War II
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Calling the Backfire a heavy bomber puts you squarely in the 1970s team B camp of wanting to have them count towards strategic weapons in SALT negotiations. Two of them. They also caught a number of Hinds and L-39s on the ground. They also used the SA-6 system they captured to kill two more Tu-22s that the Libyans sent to destroy captured equipment. It's kind of a neat battle because the financial damage ends up being pretty insane. The defending troops had T-62s that were barely used because they had no training. It's close to $500 million in lost equipment for the Libyans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I'm sorta late to diesel fires chat but this here video has a bunch of examples of such things (remember to enable English captions if you don't understand spoken Swedish): I hate myself for the double post, but, on further inspection, this is the most  version of Mythbusters I've ever seen. The fact that I picture a few Sweedisg guys sayin "Are we going in for this one?" just made it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Koesj posted:But those aren't brackets that you can justifiably place. Whose doctrine was it to charge guns on horses anyway? I think I'm doing a bad job of asking the question. I'm not asking for when the cavalry charge stopped being a thing, I'm looking for (if any) a doctrinal evolution from old bearded men with monocles micromanaging tactics on a continental map to a separation between the strategy end of things in the headquarters and the tactical end of things in the field. I only meant to use mounted cavalry charging emplaced guns as an example of high command 's orders being highly specific actions, versus commands being more objective-based. Was it ever doctrine for tactical decisions to be made by whatever supreme command was there? If so, was there an evolution from that way of doing things to strategic command and tactical command being executed by different people in different places, with multiple levels of both? If that's also the case, is there any writing detailing that evolution in warfare and its causes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
I feel like you're looking for the Prussian innovations with a general staff and in delegating power to NCOs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:I feel like you're looking for the Prussian innovations with a general staff and in delegating power to NCOs? That sounds like what I'm asking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
I just read through the wikipedia article on the Tu22 and found out that apparently one of the Lybian Tu22s lost was piloted by an East German crew. East Germany being what it was, I assume they had the blessing of the government, but can someone point me to some ressources about East German advisors/mercenaries in the Cold War?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I don't know anything more than the German language Vertragsarbeiter and most of all the NVA Präsenz in der Dritter Welt pages on Wikipedia, which, among other things, links to a very interesting MGFA overview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
I'm reading a garrison roll from 1620 and next to one guy's name there is a note: "In a year and a half he has not served watch, and not yet."  Just tell him to suck it up and do his job! You're...you know, the army. Compelling others to do things is kind of your schtick. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I'm reading a garrison roll from 1620 and next to one guy's name there is a note: "In a year and a half he has not served watch, and not yet." Is this Hans you're talking about? I fuckin love that guy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Is this Hans you're talking about? I fuckin love that guy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I'm reading a garrison roll from 1620 and next to one guy's name there is a note: "In a year and a half he has not served watch, and not yet." Maybe he was scared of the dark. Anyone else got a love of freshwater naval battles? If anybody with some knowledge in here wants to do some effortposts on that very subject regardless of time period I'll fall in love with you. I don't care if it's lakes or rivers or what, I just find them fascinating little historical notes. When I get some money on me I intend on collecting them by visiting as many as possible and diving to scope out what was left from the engagements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Please enlighten me. I'm also curious in hearing about Massie's shortcomings. I've read Dreadnought, and I've been interested in reading Castles of Steel as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I think I'm doing a bad job of asking the question. I'm not asking for when the cavalry charge stopped being a thing, I'm looking for (if any) a doctrinal evolution from old bearded men with monocles micromanaging tactics on a continental map to a separation between the strategy end of things in the headquarters and the tactical end of things in the field. It's strictly a German thing for a while. You see it become noticable under Moltke the elder, because his way of command was entirely strategic in nature. Moltke was generally more interested in railway timetables and infrastructure getting a Corps around, rather than the specifics of their march on the battlefield. For the longest time, a separate strategic and tactical command wasn't important. The army was self-sustaining in the field, and you could wander around and make those choices as you had to, rather than coordinate a specific axes of attack. By Napoleon, gigantic armies can no longer "forage" effectively, so you start having multiple formations taking different roads, and having different objectives and so on. I guess that would be the beginning of the whole separation, but nobody was extremely good at it for a while. I don't think the Charge of the Light Brigade really counts as a definitive example of order-based command. The original order isn't very specific at all (Which is standard for light cavalry), the clarification was when the brigade was misinformed, and the miscommunication came from the courier, not the general. The bizarre drama between the two officers in command that ordered and led the charge doesn't help to make sense of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't think the Charge of the Light Brigade really counts as a definitive example of order-based command. The original order isn't very specific at all (Which is standard for light cavalry), the clarification was when the brigade was misinformed, and the miscommunication came from the courier, not the general. The bizarre drama between the two officers in command that ordered and led the charge doesn't help to make sense of things. Interestingly, that same Captain Nolan is the author of "Cavalry : its history and tactics" which I have seen people claim contains a boast that a determined frontal charge of this kind would actually defeat a gun battery. It's a free ebook, so I might have to dig into it and see if there's any truth to that claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I wonder why it became so infamous though. Didn't they actually manage to rout the Russian artillery, even if at an heavy cost? Was it that rare for cavalry to suffer heavy casualties or something? I never got the fixation for that particular situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Mans posted:I wonder why it became so infamous though. Didn't they actually manage to rout the Russian artillery, even if at an heavy cost? Was it that rare for cavalry to suffer heavy casualties or something? I never got the fixation for that particular situation. Yeah, they took the guns and then fought off a counter charge on the way back. It is just famous because it was seriously stupid and everyone who saw it instantly realized that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Mans posted:I wonder why it became so infamous though. Didn't they actually manage to rout the Russian artillery, even if at an heavy cost? Was it that rare for cavalry to suffer heavy casualties or something? I never got the fixation for that particular situation. The Crimean War was one of the first wars where news reports from the front were available to the public in fairly short order. Everyone heard about it quickly when they might not have in previous wars. The Crimean War is rather interesting due to its place in the evolution of the relationship between journalism and war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Mans posted:I wonder why it became so infamous though. Didn't they actually manage to rout the Russian artillery, even if at an heavy cost? Was it that rare for cavalry to suffer heavy casualties or something? I never got the fixation for that particular situation. It was a particularly stupid way to go about it, and the casualties are like 30% of an already small unit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Klocz hasn't served watch yet, that's rich. E: thank you all for the effort posts on the terrible horrible no good very stupid cavalry charge in question, as well as the evolution of a strategic-tactical hierarchy in command structure. I assume, then, that it boiled down to decorum (of the pro patria mori variety as well as conspicuous deference to superiors) as to why the charge was made in the fashion it was? Or did the brigade not know they were charging towards active guns? FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Klocz hasn't served watch yet, that's rich. Sadly, the pun doesn't work in German.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Sadly, the pun doesn't work in German.  phonic puns almost never survive translation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
brozozo posted:I'm also curious in hearing about Massie's shortcomings. I've read Dreadnought, and I've been interested in reading Castles of Steel as well. Actually if you're looking for a general history of the period aimed at non-experts Massie is about the best you'll be able to find. I've just been working on a graduate-level thesis for so long I'm still in "my sources can beat up your sources" mode. Marder on the other hand is excellent but you have to be careful with some of his claims because he took the griping and complaining of some particularly disaffected officers way too seriously (gently caress Herbert Richmond).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Actually if you're looking for a general history of the period aimed at non-experts Massie is about the best you'll be able to find. I've just been working on a graduate-level thesis for so long I'm still in "my sources can beat up your sources" mode. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Klocz hasn't served watch yet, that's rich. Well, it was sort of an order, and officers can be very dumb. This really has never changed. It would have been very obvious on the ground that it was a bad idea. The guns they were actually supposed to capture were on the hills directly overlooking the charge's path...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 10:59
|
|