|
the JJ posted:More or less, yeah. I was wondering how much old school spanish had with current. Since my spanish teachers came from oh, you know, all over the loving place, I had no clue what the pronunciation might be. Was just trying to earball it.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Was just trying to earball it. Is that when you shoot drugs directly into your ears?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:E: nv Like the name would suggest, it started in Early Modernity. The development of something that could be called states is a long process, and in Europe it is the process between 1500 and 1800 (give or take). You can't really point to single moment when the modern state starts to appear. Basically the Middle Ages ran on the concept of personal relationships. The Serfs were personally bound to their lords (the German term is Leibeigene, literally "the (physical) body's own"), the lords were bound to their lieges, and so on until the King/Emperor. During Early Modern times, that relationship - or at least the ruler's idea of that relationship - shifts from being the lord of a number of people (the Duke of Mecklenburg, for example, called himself Duke of the Wends and Lord of the Cities Rostock and Stade) to being ruler over a certain territory - and it was a long and often violent process before everyone living in that territory acknowledged that they were bound by the ruler's laws. To tie this back into military history, the Early Modernity was also a time of military changes (the so-called "Military Revolution"), which caused army size and monetary costs for waging war to explode. think about it - in the Middle Ages, rulers gave land to nobles in exchange for military service. Every ruler could call up a number of soldiers who were personally loyal to him. In Early Modern Times, this was no longer enough, and mercenaries had to be hired, which costs money. Later the states (or kinda-like-states-entities) had standing armies, which cost even more. Plus the costs associated with an artillery train and fortifications to defend against the new artillery. All of this meant that war cost a shitton of money, where before it kinda paid for itself - the knights got no money because they were supposed to live off the land (and the people) that had been granted to them by their liege lord. So, in order to pay for the wars, taxes were raised, and tax assessors were created who ran around the country assessing the wealth of the people. This is to be taken quite literally - archives are full of endless lists of how many sheep, pigs, cows, chickens, horses, fields, houses and so on every single peasant or citydweller had (often quite amusing to read - "he has a horse, but he says it is lame and that his five chickens lay few eggs, and because his pasture is poor his cows give little milk so he can pay no more than :tenbux:"). This, in turn, created the first elements of a effective state administration, which spread into other areas for a number of reasons. This is a very simplified overview, but seriously, "When did the modern nation state appear and how did it develop" is the big question of Early Modernity. You could fill an entire library with books written about it. Maybe we need a "ask us about Early Modernity" thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
A really short version is that the nation-state becomes a big (explicit) deal with the French Revolution, because... reasons. Lots of very good reasons that I don't feel like elaborating. Hobsbawm built his career on it. One of his points: it's quite easy to argue that the modern state precedes the modern nation. Not coincidentally, that's pretty much the break point between Early Modern and Modern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
So the ancient 'states' weren't states in the strictest sense, despite having legal codes and borders and administrative bureaucracies? Or are we just talking about medieval europe here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:E: nv Around the 19th century, when the various organs of state were able to effectively assert control over regions through communication, transport and other technologies. A lot of the various isms appeared around that time, including nationalism, which became a new basis of legitimacy for the state, based largely on the principles of race, language and culture. Of course, national identities had existed before then, but the nation state was a new beast, one which upped the scales in a lot of ways. The states relationship with the nation was especially popular in Germany, or what was to become Germany, with philosophers like Hegel offering up ideas about the state as an almost holy entity. This is basically my favourite topic and part of the reason why the 19th century is my favourite century for history. I could write an absolute gently caress ton more so if anyone has anything specific they'd like to hear about regarding this I wouldn't mind sperging out a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So the ancient 'states' weren't states in the strictest sense, despite having legal codes and borders and administrative bureaucracies? Or are we just talking about medieval europe here. Its the dirty little secret of Early Modernity that much of what was developed there existed earlier or elsewhere. But even the definition of what a state is (most people I know use the three core elements - area, population, supreme power) is based on the modern day, and using it on something like the Roman Empire wouldn't necessarily tell you about what it actually was. But you are right, Early Modernity is a strictly European period. Talking about Early Modern China is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:[...] a bomber makes a belly landing with a ball turret that couldn't be retracted Has this actually been verified (the B-17 story, that is)? The more I dig through random internet discussion boards, the more story dilutes to "Andy Rooney said it happened". And the more people dig through Rooney's sometimes notoriously inaccurate descriptions, the less certain the story becomes. The most identifiable origin is a certain flight in August 1943, and they didn't suffer any casualties at all. The story suffers from several problems: aside from the obvious lack of hard evidence, the B-17s ball turret couldn't be retracted at all. B-24s could.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Can someone give me an example of Soviet Deep Battle and how it'd work? I'm reading Zhukov's biography right now and there's a lot of talk about things like 'operational depth' but I'm not sure what that means in an on the ground way. How was it different from Blitzkrieg and does it essentially rely on having a huge numerical advantage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
maev posted:Can someone give me an example of Soviet Deep Battle and how it'd work? I'm reading Zhukov's biography right now and there's a lot of talk about things like 'operational depth' but I'm not sure what that means in an on the ground way. How was it different from Blitzkrieg and does it essentially rely on having a huge numerical advantage? I think Operations Bagration is the usual example. But yeah, it relies on numerical superiority, but so does Blitzkrieg (at the Schwerpunkt). But where Blitzkrieg relies on breaking through at a more or less predetermined spot followed by exploiting and pushing deep into the rear, Deep battle is an attack along a long stretch of the front, with follow up waves exploiting breakthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:Has this actually been verified (the B-17 story, that is)? The more I dig through random internet discussion boards, the more story dilutes to "Andy Rooney said it happened". And the more people dig through Rooney's sometimes notoriously inaccurate descriptions, the less certain the story becomes. The most identifiable origin is a certain flight in August 1943, and they didn't suffer any casualties at all. My source for the story would be Masters of the Air by Donald Miller. Unfortunately it's an audiobook so I can't easily go back and quote it nor check his references, but the event was very explicitly described. maev posted:Can someone give me an example of Soviet Deep Battle and how it'd work? I'm reading Zhukov's biography right now and there's a lot of talk about things like 'operational depth' but I'm not sure what that means in an on the ground way. How was it different from Blitzkrieg and does it essentially rely on having a huge numerical advantage? Yes, it relies on having a large numerical advantage. Or rather, Deep Battle was designed as a way to leverage the expectation that the Soviet Union would always be fighting with a numerical advantage against any given enemy. To juxtapose this against Blitzkrieg (and I must preface this with an pre-emptive apology for any mangling of the respective theories as I dumb it down): Blitzkrieg is about picking a weak spot in the enemy's line (the schwerpunkt), opening it up with an infantry assault and artillery bombardment to create a break in the line, and driving tanks through the gap you just opened. Air power will disrupt the enemy's logistics and infrastructure to prevent them from being able to react to the gap created. If the rest of the enemy line stands still, then it will be outflanked and rolled up in the case of a single break, or it will be encircled/pocketed and subsequently destroyed in the case of a double-envelopment move. Deep Battle on the other hand is about attacking all across the line, with the reasoning that the enemy cannot be strong everywhere. Some point in his line will eventually break. The first echelon will launch the front-wide assault to create the break, then the second (and succeeding) echelon will exploit the breaks in the line. This second echelon would be mostly composed of armored / mechanized units. Whereas Blitzkrieg picks the weak spot beforehand, Deep Battle attacks everywhere to generate a weak spot. Such a strategy would be incompatible with, say, the Wehrmacht, since they very well could not afford committing as many tanks as the Red Army could over such a wide area. As in all military doctrine, there is always the concept of concentration of force, and a commander would of course allocate his better units against parts of the line where he would expect a gap to be formed, but the idea of dealing simultaneous blows across the front is always present regardless. The reference to 'operational depth' I think refers to the scale at which the enemy is being attacked. When the first echelon engages, they're tackling the 'tactical depth' of the enemy defenses, where the enemy will shift regiments, battalions, etc to react to the attack. Once a breakthrough is made and the exploiting second echelon is sent in, then you are dealing with the enemy's 'operational depth', where the second echelon can then wreak havoc on the enemy's logistics and supplies and can stymie (or defeat in detail) entire enemy divisions before they can reinforce and become part of the 'tactical depth' again. Further still would be the 'strategic depth', or the connection between the enemy's front line troops and their centers of industry and manpower. The most classic example of Deep Battle would be Operation Bagration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
All offensive doctrines rely on having a numerical advantage *where it matters*. In general, the Red Army had a 2:1 or 1.5:1 manpower and tank numbers advantage over the Germans on the Eastern front overall. What made Deep Battle work was the Soviets' strategic ability to use deception and good organisation to leverage that into things like a local 10:1 advantage in tanks at the start of Bagration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Deep Battle on the other hand is about attacking all across the line, with the reasoning that the enemy cannot be strong everywhere. Some point in his line will eventually break. The first echelon will launch the front-wide assault to create the break, then the second (and succeeding) echelon will exploit the breaks in the line. This second echelon would be mostly composed of armored / mechanized units. Whereas Blitzkrieg picks the weak spot beforehand, Deep Battle attacks everywhere to generate a weak spot. Such a strategy would be incompatible with, say, the Wehrmacht, since they very well could not afford committing as many tanks as the Red Army could over such a wide area. Would the troops who hadn't created the weak spot be redeployed to help push through or were they kept where they were and left the movement to the second echelon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Gibfender posted:Would the troops who hadn't created the weak spot be redeployed to help push through or were they kept where they were and left the movement to the second echelon? It would really depend from battle to battle, but in general, the first echelon would be tasked with holding the edges of the gaps open once the gap was already created, leaving the second echelon to really do the exploitation across the gap. As well, the first echelon would have lots more infantry and assault troops, while the second echelon would have more armored and motorized/mechanized units, making the latter more suited for rapid movement anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:Has this actually been verified (the B-17 story, that is)? The more I dig through random internet discussion boards, the more story dilutes to "Andy Rooney said it happened". And the more people dig through Rooney's sometimes notoriously inaccurate descriptions, the less certain the story becomes. The most identifiable origin is a certain flight in August 1943, and they didn't suffer any casualties at all. The issue isn't that the ball turret can't be retracted, but that the turret needs to be able to point in the right direction for the gunner to actually get out. If the turret is jammed, the gunner has no way of getting out, and if the B-17 has to make a wheels-up landing (Or if a B-24 had to make a landing at all, since it didn't have the ground clearance to make a landing with the ball-turret down.) To determine how often it actually happened is probably impossible, but I'm sure that scenario occurred at least a few times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
It's just aluminum right? I'm surprised they didn't have some sort of cutting tools on board to free the poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:It's just aluminum right? I'm surprised they didn't have some sort of cutting tools on board to free the poor guy. bombers usually carry bombs, not cutting tools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah but you'd imagine a ball gunner would go gently caress this and stick a wrench in there somewhere just in case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Yeah but you'd imagine a ball gunner would go gently caress this and stick a wrench in there somewhere just in case. That sound like the kind of thing that comes with experience. It's like that story from yesterday about Old 666. Those guys retrofitted their bird with extra armor and guns and carried even more spare guns in case the first ones jammed. But that crew was comprised of guys who'd all been around long enough to be considered troublemakers and wash-outs from other crews. They were veterans, in other words. Veteran crews probably had all kinds of extra gear and tools for just that sort of problem. Green crews fresh from the States? Probably not so much. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the ball-turret is extremely cramped. The crewmen couldn't even fit a parachute in there, and in any case a single wrench wouldn't really do much good in trying to get them out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I think Operations Bagration is the usual example. But yeah, it relies on numerical superiority, but so does Blitzkrieg (at the Schwerpunkt). But where Blitzkrieg relies on breaking through at a more or less predetermined spot followed by exploiting and pushing deep into the rear, Deep battle is an attack along a long stretch of the front, with follow up waves exploiting breakthroughs. Wasn't another tenet of Deep Battle the idea that you should commit reserves to points where you have local advantage (ie, are winning) as opposed to using them to shore up portions of the attack that are having problems? Or am I mis-remembering this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Kenlon posted:Wasn't another tenet of Deep Battle the idea that you should commit reserves to points where you have local advantage (ie, are winning) as opposed to using them to shore up portions of the attack that are having problems? This is made more difficult by the fact that Blitzkrieg is a hazy and undefined idea, but essentially the way I see the overarching difference is that the aim of a Blitzkrieg style operation is to encircle and destroy the enemy army. The aim of Deep Battle is to make continuing a war untenable by having an army push past the front-lines and threaten the enemy's interior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Deep Battle aims for the enemy HQ. While the communication lines may not be cut and HQ might not be destroyed, being constantly on the run greatly harms the HQ's ability to command anything. Their forces on the front line will be ineffective, and the front will be swiftly destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Kenlon posted:Wasn't another tenet of Deep Battle the idea that you should commit reserves to points where you have local advantage (ie, are winning) as opposed to using them to shore up portions of the attack that are having problems? I think yes, you are correct. Throwing your reserves towards the more successful parts of the front goes hand in hand with attacking everywhere, waiting for a gap to develop, and exploiting that gap - the gap is the point where you're winning. Alchenar posted:This is made more difficult by the fact that Blitzkrieg is a hazy and undefined idea, but essentially the way I see the overarching difference is that the aim of a Blitzkrieg style operation is to encircle and destroy the enemy army. The aim of Deep Battle is to make continuing a war untenable by having an army push past the front-lines and threaten the enemy's interior. That's an intriguing way of putting it. What was it about Operation Saturn/Uranus or the Korsun Offensive that would continue to classify it as a Deep Battle, if the aim was to encircle and destroy the German Army?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I'm generally familiar with how the conquest went down (although some of it's new to me and it's all interesting), but I was specifically wondering if the fighting was conducted with conventional European field tactics like the tercio. Off the top of my head, the lack of cavalry among the enemy might make pikes less attractive, but you guys are the ones with degrees. I'd recommend to read "The True History of the Conquest of New Spain" by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, he was during the conquest of Mexico but take it with a grain of salt. If you like to read more maybe the "Visión de los vencidos", talks about the conquest from the other side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
speaking of B-17's there is a new movie coming out aslo HBO is working on a mini series based on Masters of Air https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhmFFtjB2qY cant wait for the white washing of war criminals/terror fligers/imperialist air pirates backlash
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is made more difficult by the fact that Blitzkrieg is a hazy and undefined idea, but essentially the way I see the overarching difference is that the aim of a Blitzkrieg style operation is to encircle and destroy the enemy army. The aim of Deep Battle is to make continuing a war untenable by having an army push past the front-lines and threaten the enemy's interior. I thought the idea of blitzkrieg was the exact opposite to this? It isn't like the Wehrmacht encircled and destroyed the French army, they bypassed the main line and ran amok in the French rear areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I thought the idea of blitzkrieg was the exact opposite to this? It isn't like the Wehrmacht encircled and destroyed the French army, they bypassed the main line and ran amok in the French rear areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:speaking of B-17's there is a new movie coming out aslo HBO is working on a mini series based on Masters of Air Not gonna lie, this looks pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I think it was posted earlier in the thread and somebody compared the cloud of 109s to the TIE fighters in Return of the Jedi. It looks ridiculous. The last quarter of Memphis Belle was prolly better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
It's funny how many movies about B-17s there have been compared to basically any other bomber. It's a beautiful plane and all, but it's odd that the Lancaster crews don't seem to get any credit for running mission after mission until the war ended rather than a pre-set number.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
To be fair, a mini series or movie about British Bomber crews in WW2 would be incredibly depressing as I could see half the casted characters being killed off midway.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
I thought that was a pretty neat clip. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
It's war fiction, I'll take depressing over frantic masturbation any time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:To be fair, a mini series or movie about British Bomber crews in WW2 would be incredibly depressing as I could see half the casted characters being killed off midway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
So, is there a strategy to counter Deep Battle? Other than nuclear weapons or having more soldiers or just straight up win before your opponent starts deep battle or you're doomed? Is it knowing where the Deep Battle strategist is likely to commit his forces for the exploitation, and trying to fake him out? Trying to split up his exploitation force? Finding really goo terrain? Or is all this too dependent on the specific situations to say that there's a specific counter strategy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:speaking of B-17's there is a new movie coming out aslo HBO is working on a mini series based on Masters of Air That cloud of German fighters looked stupid as hell, and the pilot's "not yet" line was just awful. Should have made it about the Brits, with realistic conversations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R5NI-IrUU0
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Arquinsiel posted:It's funny how many movies about B-17s there have been compared to basically any other bomber. It's a beautiful plane and all, but it's odd that the Lancaster crews don't seem to get any credit for running mission after mission until the war ended rather than a pre-set number. Bomber Command isn't Hollywood enough, sorry - whereas you can show a hundred Forts flying wing-tip to wing-tip, Lancs were too far apart in a stream and it would be too dark to see anything even if they were closer. Whereas you can show some kind of gee-shucks farmboy citizen soldier camaraderie in a B-17 crew, the strict separation of officers versus enlisted men in the RAF would be a difficult thing to depict wholesomely to say the least. steinrokkan posted:Not gonna lie, this looks pretty awful. Having actually read Masters of the Air, I have to agree with this. Rockopolis posted:So, is there a strategy to counter Deep Battle? Other than nuclear weapons or having more soldiers or just straight up win before your opponent starts deep battle or you're doomed? The German experience in 1942-1943 in the Ukraine/Donbas was that you had to counter-attack the first echelon aggressively and immediately, before they got a chance to dig in and before the second echelon arrived. This became more and more difficult once the Germans started running out of reserves and/or mobile reaction/firefighting forces. EDIT: That's if the first echelon makes enough progress to stress/snap your lines in the first place. If the first echelon can't win at the tactical level and/or the second echelon has to be committed before a gap has been made, the concept falls apart. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bomber Command isn't Hollywood enough, sorry - whereas you can show a hundred Forts flying wing-tip to wing-tip, Lancs were too far apart in a stream and it would be too dark to see anything even if they were closer. Whereas you can show some kind of gee-shucks farmboy citizen soldier camaraderie in a B-17 crew, the strict separation of officers versus enlisted men in the RAF would be a difficult thing to depict wholesomely to say the least. You could probably get away with it. Isn't Downton Abbey just class divisions all over the place? I imagine you could pitch that sort of thing to an American TV exec now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, is there a strategy to counter Deep Battle? Other than nuclear weapons or having more soldiers or just straight up win before your opponent starts deep battle or you're doomed? Defense in depth. A force that penetrated expects your rear echelons to be relatively easy to ravage. Infantry is on march, guns are not deployed, reserve artillery isn't dialed in, etc. If that force gets stuck on another line of defense, and you can spare some forces from the front line to pincer them, they're not going to do so well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:58
|
|