Arquinsiel posted:That worries me. People seem fine with my Maggie avatar.... Yeah Jauche, I think you were just hanging around with some really uncool people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:Graf Speed 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
"If this Pocket Battleship drops down below the speed of eight knots IT WILL EXPLODE!"
SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I don't suppose you are going to cover any of the Royal Navy White Elephants in future posts mllaneza? I had forgotten about the hit on the Graf Spee's fuel processing plant. That was a lucky hit. The desalination plant was hit too, that'd make a trip home rough. I should definitely do Fisher's Follies, probably as a lead-in to the French carriers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Do you mind saying what school you go to? or at least if it is public/private and in what province? I had a different experience through my secondary education and barely had any history that related to Argentina or Latin America in my tertiary. Nobody ever told me that Pearl Harbour was a big conspiracy, for example, (although the myth relating to that was explicitly mentioned to point out how convoluted and ridiculous it was). Are you doing an outright history degree or is it a humanities field that has a bit of that mixed in? Hey there, forgot you were an Argentinian too. I'm studying History Licenciate at the Universidad Publica de La Pampa. It is an outright history degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
So I have question about WW1 italian front. It has been brought up in my education mostly in the context of (miniscule) Czechoslovak legions. The whole story is mostly about nothing happens and then Austria wins and then Italy wins at Veneto and anyway Eastern front! Well, I was reading a book and this overview ended with dates of occupation of Austrian cities. So what really happened late on italian front and how hosed Austria-Hungary was?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Yeah Jauche, I think you were just hanging around with some really uncool people. Arquinsiel, your avatar makes my eye twitch. Anyway, it was this thread or it's predecessor.  No really, it's harmless compared to the medieval history thread. So here's a mughal crab bow from the Grayson collection. These are the apex of bowyery and were in use well into the 18th to 19th century.  They are some kind of a mystery, as even the best guys today can't make them in the original configuration work effectively (which was reported by british archery enthusiasts in the 19th century). One can only wonder about the level of sophistication that these indian craftsmen possesed. They're the wootz steel of bowyery if you understand the analogy. Makes me wonder if we don't underappreciate the martial history of India. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Just to get my post in on Graf Spee chat, didn't she also fire off some large fraction of her ammunition load in that first battle? Her Captain might have been spooked by the fake radio transmission but his analysis was basically correct - once spotted and trailed, his ship wasn't making it home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Azran posted:Then Felipe Pigna comes along and says "You guys do realize how expensive oil was in Buenos Aires, right? Why wouldn't they use water." I do. Gimme the reading list. Gimme! Gimme! Spanish language resources are okay, I need to practice anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:07
|
|
I can't recommend that guy enough for general Argentinian history, if any of you have any interest.
|
JaucheCharly posted:Arquinsiel, your avatar makes my eye twitch. Anyway, it was this thread or it's predecessor. This is really interesting. What sort of wood is that? Is it multiple laminated layers of different stuff, or what? When it's strung, does it bend the opposite direction to how it looks in the picture, or am I misunderstanding it somehow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Oh, just using my steam name here for reasons of DayZ Thanks guys, I'm loving the Battlecruiser chat since I'm reading Castles of Steel right now, holy poo poo Beatty's wife was crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Gladi posted:So I have question about WW1 italian front. It has been brought up in my education mostly in the context of (miniscule) Czechoslovak legions. The whole story is mostly about nothing happens and then Austria wins and then Italy wins at Veneto and anyway Eastern front! Well, I was reading a book and this overview ended with dates of occupation of Austrian cities. So what really happened late on italian front and how hosed Austria-Hungary was? Ok so here is the deal. Italy pretty much telegraphed its moves to declare war on Austria-Hungary, and did so without really arranging its forces or its national resources. Austria had a very scrappy force at first under the overall command of a very competent Slavic (Croation maybe?) commander, who was the highest ranking Slav in the service. His force was usually composed of Slovenes, Czechs, Bosnians and Croats with some German forces. Point being, these nationalities who usually surrendered to the Russians were pretty adamant about defending their homelands, especially after the Italians came out with their goals of annexing large parts of Slovenia and the Adriatic coast. Austria used Italy's own newspapers for their propaganda. Anyways, fighting in the Alps is crazy enough to begin with and Italy added lots of incompetence from the top down. The main leader Caldorna is a poster child of what to not loving do as a Commander in Chief. He had complete control over a large part of Northern Italy as zones of control, believed in crazy discipline that led to easily the highest amounts and rates of capital punishment for his own troops, and did not believe in leave for his troops, good training, and any challenges to his goals. When it came to the battles, he was limited by geography and choice to a very small number of places to attack. And yet he did so in a way that was quite simply disastrous. The main place was near the Isonzo river. Where there were 12 Battles of the Isonzo. 12. loving. Battles. Not over a single campaign, over 2 years. Imagine morale for Italy when army after army gets shattered going up the same drat mountains and the same small river for 2 years. And taking a few hundred yards, then getting thrown back by some quality Austrian counter-attacks, and then being charged with desertion or more. Cadora had 1 in 17 Italian soldiers charged with discipline issues, and like 60% were deemed guilty before trial. So after 11 or so battles that Italy started and ended, poo poo was bad for them. On Austria's side, life was tough from shortages, but morale was pretty drat good for Austria. They were constantly beating the despicable enemy that turned its back on its allies, and they were getting pretty inspired nationally. They were fighting less for Austria and more for their homes and cultures. Now note that earlier Austria launched a pretty good counteroffensive, took some ground, then retreated back to the original lines that were well built up. So Austria notices that Italy is really reeling from dissent both at home and at the front. Lots of desertions, and their contacts in Italian cities are reporting the same. They ask the Germans for help, and the Germans reluctantly send a few divisions and commanders. These came from the Eastern front, where Russia has virtually collapsed. They bring with them the new Stormtrooper tactics that were employed in the Baltic regions. The strategy is to go quick over a large area, bypass major strongpoints, etc. This is a big change compared to the Italian tactic of having just masses of troops that are deeper than they are wide. Carpets of them. Anyways, Cadora being a "If it's not what I think then I don't want to hear it" kind of man, does not have his troops trained or prepared for defensive positions. Last minute warnings get ignored or not completely followed up on, and next thing you have is a major disaster. Over half of the Italian troops involved at first (270k out of 400k) end up surrendering with little fight, and now 1 out of Italy's 3 field armies is gone. Not beaten, not in retreat. Gone. Its a miracle that the other two managed to stave off (even more of a) disaster. Cadorna is gone, and like France with the mutiny, Italy is no longer ready to do war for the next 8 months or so. Then England and France send major land forces to Italy to bolster them, Italy defeats a poorly done Austrian attack, but is still far away from the earlier front at the Isonzo. During this time Austria is coming apart. The US declared war, the new Austrian Emperor is seeking peace at almost any price, the nations of Austria-Hungary are all about the 14 points, and the front is quiet. A few weeks before the war ends, Italy launches a massive offensive with allied participation. The Austrian soldiers refuse to counter-attack, indeed halfway in the battle Czechoslovakia and Hungary declared independence. So the battle ended not with a major victory, but the dissolution of the other side. TLDR: Italy certainly justified Churchill's comment when he learned in WW2 that Italy joined Nazi Germany: "That seems only fair, they were on our side last time" Source: The White War, Life and Death on the Italian Front Mister Gopher fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Mister Gopher posted:
And as an addition, read this book and learn about horrible piece of poo poo propagandists who led Italy to fascism, the beginning of the phrase 'Duce' that was put in place by state sponsored propaganda, and the despair of being a southern Italian soldier in the frozen north. Two frostbitten, shrapnel shorn thumbs up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:Thanks guys, I'm loving the Battlecruiser chat since I'm reading Castles of Steel right now, holy poo poo Beatty's wife was crazy. Oh dear lord that was easily the most awkward part of the book and I thought I had blocked it out of my mind completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Minor footnote: The fighting on the Italian front was where a young Colonel (?) by the name of Erwin Rommel got his Pour Le Merit, the Prussian equivalent of the Medal of honor. He was supposed to get it for leading the attack that captured a key mountain that anchored the Italian line, but another officer got credit. So he captured the next mountain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Minor footnote: The fighting on the Italian front was where a young Colonel (?) by the name of Erwin Rommel got his Pour Le Merit, the Prussian equivalent of the Medal of honor. He was supposed to get it for leading the attack that captured a key mountain that anchored the Italian line, but another officer got credit. So he captured the next mountain. Yeah, its fun reading his account of just going behind hill after hill and capturing tons of soldiers while their Italian commanders just sit and cry out of frustration. And the fact that all the work in beating the Italians was done by their own commander.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I do. Gimme the reading list. Gimme! Gimme! The books aren't really available in English, as far as I see. Most of them don't really deal with argentinian military history, but they touch on it. Just to mention some good books: Mujeres tenían que ser (It had to be women) talks about how Argentinian history has shat constantly on amazing women as time went by, while this one is part of an ongoing series about Argentinian history myths (IIRC, it was here where the oil thing is mentioned, besides his own show). I haven't read Libertadores of America yet but it should be right up the military alley, considering the topic.  The show he worked on, along with the renowned journalist Mario Pergolini, can be found in Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOePseOaCE0 It's not in English, but it tends to talk about the bloodiest bits of Argentina's history, and it's quite engaging if you can understand the language. Just out of the top of my head, it goes through the British Invasions of Rio de la Plata, the War of Independance, the Triple Alliance War and all the civil strife in between. Just as an odd bit, the name is play on the phrase "Algo habran hecho" (they must have done something) which is an infamous phrase from the National Reorganization Process (a.k.a the military junta that fought the Falklands War) regarding people that were kidnapped for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
The thing that gets me about the Italian front is that parts of the front crossed through some absolutely inhospitable terrain that was apparently surrendered back to nature when the war ended. Now that we've gotten really good at poisoning the atmosphere, some of it is starting to emerge again, more or less exactly how it had been abandoned. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10562017/Melting-glaciers-in-northern-Italy-reveal-corpses-of-WW1-soldiers.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
This might go outside of the military but after watching the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven and loving it does anyone has any recommendation of books about the crusader states ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Back when it came out in cinemas and I loved it I was told what "the super-definitive no really" work on the crusades was, but the name of the drat book escapes me buried under the Mission Impossible "dig through weirdly old looking parts of the Lecky Library in TCD, all the while being sure I was going to get asked for my ID and the cops would be called" shenanigans I went through to get it. And then it was so dry it was the first book I ever didn't bother to finish. Amazingly they didn't even look at the ID when I checked the book out. Sadly the girl who's ID I had borrowed may want me dead, so uh... good luck?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This is really interesting. What sort of wood is that? Is it multiple laminated layers of different stuff, or what? It's a sinew-wood-horn composite. They used mulberry, mango or maple for such bows. The crosscut would basically look like this:  The main difference is, that the horn strip would be very narrow, not like in the picture. Strangely enough these bows contain a higher ammount of wood than other comparable composites (where the weight would be 1/3 glue and sinew, 1/3 wood, 1/3 horn). The whole bow will be wrapped in sinew and then be varnished. Wrapping the whole bow in sinew is unusual, as sinew and glue are relatively heavy, but the tradeoff is that the bow will store large ammounts of energy and be more stable. It's safer to use and can be strung for weeks without losing lots of power. From the point of construction this is an immense display of craftsmanship and precision. With the sinew wrap you cannot remove material in order to make the bow bend more evenly. You have to get it right from the beginning and you can only correct with heat. The strung bow would look like this, although with slightly more acute angles  And at full draw  If you compare the picture of my previous post, the lower one is a modern reproduction of a crab bow (also with natural materials)  You can see that it has a less reflexed grip and that the angles at the limb/ear transition are less acute. The modern reproduction is modified for stability and more simple construction. Less radical design. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Battlecruiser chat: How overmatched was the Graf Spee, if at all? I remember Castles of Steel mentioning that an officer considered its sinking the redemption of the Royal Navy's failure to engage the Goeben. Were the circumstances that similar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
The ship Graf Spee was sunk in WWII. Admiral Graf Spee commanded SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau in WWI. Invincible and Inflexible overmatched the German armored cruisers by a huge margin and the outcome was never in doubt. However, by pursuing an enemy across the Atlantic and aggressively seeking battle, the Royal Navy demonstrated its fighting spirit. I'm not sure I'd call it "redemption" but it certainly changed the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:
I play Axis and Allies: War at Sea, a naval miniatures game and the French battlecruisers are some of my favorite ships to play. I am a fan of battlecruisers in general but the French ships have always served me well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:The ship Graf Spee was sunk in WWII. Admiral Graf Spee commanded SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau in WWI. Invincible and Inflexible overmatched the German armored cruisers by a huge margin and the outcome was never in doubt. However, by pursuing an enemy across the Atlantic and aggressively seeking battle, the Royal Navy demonstrated its fighting spirit. I'm not sure I'd call it "redemption" but it certainly changed the conversation. Yup, I'm aware of that! The comparison I recall from the book was definitely between the unsuccessful pursuit of the Goeben in WWI and the successful pursuit of the SMS Graf Spee (the ship, not the man) in WWII
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yup, I'm aware of that! The comparison I recall from the book was definitely between the unsuccessful pursuit of the Goeben in WWI and the successful pursuit of the SMS Graf Spee (the ship, not the man) in WWII Yeah the question at hand was 'should three armoured cruisers attempt to engage a dreadnaught in open seas?' I point to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and say the answer is pretty clearly 'no'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah the question at hand was 'should three armoured cruisers attempt to engage a dreadnaught in open seas?'
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yup, I'm aware of that! The comparison I recall from the book was definitely between the unsuccessful pursuit of the Goeben in WWI and the successful pursuit of the SMS Graf Spee (the ship, not the man) in WWII I haven't read Castles of Steel in a while but I didn't remember it including anything from WWII. If it did make that comparison it's a little inane. There were plenty of occasions in WWI to redeem whatever needed to be redeemed from Goeben's escape. Anyone still making a fuss about it in WWII was just being a dick. Edit: The RN's principle of "always fight" makes a lot of sense for a navy doing trade protection - even if you lose your ship, you might cripple the raider, exhaust its ammunition, or otherwise accomplish something that will save a merchant ship later on. Once radio became functional for strategic communication that changed a little bit, since shadowing and waiting for reinforcements could do as much to protect trade without exposing the ship to as much risk. In Goeben's case it was a little more mixed - why take a vastly inferior force to battle against a battlecruiser that was about to bottle itself up? Unfortunately the RN had an institutional distrust of any line of logic leading to a decision not to fight. Zorak of Michigan fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
But that's the thing, were the ships really that disadvantaged against a Battlecruiser with leaking boilers/condensers that couldn't go up to its real speed and a single light cruiser? Castles of Steel only makes the comparison inasmuch as it says that officers, after the sinking of Graf Spee, thought that the decisions to not fight the Goeben was the wrong one. The range advantage that the Goeben had would have been negated by the fact that it couldn't reach its proper speed and the cruisers would have managed to get close. To say that the Battle of the Falklands proved that the Goeben couldn't have fought seems slightly weird, because the two situations were not alike, while comparisons with the Graf Spee and the success that cruisers had against the Graf Spee is a much better comparison. Also, the Goeben was a major factor into Turkey entering the war: to say that it didn't matter if the Goeben was sunk because it was 'bottling itself up' anyway seems rather short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:But that's the thing, were the ships really that disadvantaged against a Battlecruiser with leaking boilers/condensers that couldn't go up to its real speed and a single light cruiser? Castles of Steel only makes the comparison inasmuch as it says that officers, after the sinking of Graf Spee, thought that the decisions to not fight the Goeben was the wrong one. The range advantage that the Goeben had would have been negated by the fact that it couldn't reach its proper speed and the cruisers would have managed to get close. Even with damaged boilers etc, the Goeben was faster than the cruisers. The damage reduced the Goeben to 24 knots, while the British fleet could only make 23 - maximum. Further, there was no way for the British captains to anticipate the long term consequences. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Even with damaged boilers etc, the Goeben was faster than the cruisers. The damage reduced the Goeben to 24 knots, while the British fleet could only make 23. Further, there was no way for the British captains to anticipate the long term consequences. Also the British captains have no way of knowing that Goeben has damaged boilers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
That might be, but the point was that once the hindsight of the Graf Spee was provided, many were convinced that the same situation could have been achieved with the Goeben: sure, they would have been damaged, but it is possible that the Goeben could have met the same fate as the Graf Spee. I think that's the point that Castles of Steel was trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:That might be, but the point was that once the hindsight of the Graf Spee was provided, many were convinced that the same situation could have been achieved with the Goeben: sure, they would have been damaged, but it is possible that the Goeben could have met the same fate as the Graf Spee. I think that's the point that Castles of Steel was trying to make. The same fate as the Graf Spee would equal the sinking of all the British ships in return for the Goeben arriving at Turkey with reduced ammunition - a result much worse than the historical one. The Graf Spee was out in the middle of nowhere with finite fuel and ammunition, and British intelligence successfully prevented it from escaping. The Goeben didn't have to escape. It simply had to reach its destination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:That might be, but the point was that once the hindsight of the Graf Spee was provided, many were convinced that the same situation could have been achieved with the Goeben: sure, they would have been damaged, but it is possible that the Goeben could have met the same fate as the Graf Spee. I think that's the point that Castles of Steel was trying to make. Goeben was a more powerful armed AND armored ship than Graf Spee was. She could outrange Troubridge's entire squadron and outrun it and barring very lucky hits, 9.2s would not likely penetrate Goeben's armored belt, which was significantly more than Graf Spee's. Seydlitz was a slightly improved class, but it was built upon Moltke, Goeben and Von der Tann. Look how much damage Seydlitz took at Jutland. Troubridge could try all he want, but its not likely to be in his favor. Graf Spee was a hybrid cruiser/battlecruiser designed for commerce raiding. It carried six 11" guns with a maximum belt armor of 3(!) inches. Goeben was a straight up battlecruiser designed for fleet action. It carried ten 11" guns with a maximum belt of 11 inches that tapered to 4 near the ends. You really can't compare the two ships. Edit: \/ If you were Troubridge, you know that your armored cruisers cant catch up to Goeben, nor can your guns hit it. What are you going to do? Send lovely WW1 destroyers in on some naval charge of the light brigade? Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The same fate as the Graf Spee would equal the sinking of all the British ships in return for the Goeben arriving at Turkey with reduced ammunition - a result much worse than the historical one. EDIT: Fair enough if that's the case, I only noticed the answer once I posted my own and it pretty much answers my questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It's a sinew-wood-horn composite. They used mulberry, mango or maple for such bows. The crosscut would basically look like this: Man, in another life time I went to a different undergrad that actually had a halfway descent India prof. in the department.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It's a sinew-wood-horn composite. They used mulberry, mango or maple for such bows. The crosscut would basically look like this: This is cool. So why do modern reconstructors (?) have difficulty getting the bows to perform to their historical standard? Is there some lost technique that hasn't survived the ages?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This is cool. So why do modern reconstructors (?) have difficulty getting the bows to perform to their historical standard? Is there some lost technique that hasn't survived the ages? Modern re-enactors literally don't have the strength and training to make use of many historical war bows. We're talking people who trained so drat hard for so long their bones are deformed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I'm aware of that, I'm meaning that in an earlier post he said:quote:They are some kind of a mystery, as even the best guys today can't make them in the original configuration work effectively (which was reported by british archery enthusiasts in the 19th century). and I'm wondering what element of their construction has been lost or mis-interpreted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
I originally asked this in a completely different thread, but you guys are almost certainly going to be more use for this. Can someone recommend me a decent work (ideally a fairly broad, easily followed, lively survey work) on the Russian Civil War (and potentially the post-civil war/pre-WW2 era too, though I realise that's not paricularly relevant militarily)? I'm pretty well read on the revolution, and on the Soviet side during WW2, but the bit in between remains a total mystery to me. Also a couple of actual questions on this general topic: 1) Could explain to me how the Bolsheviks were able to triumph over the White Army et al? I know they had a substantial number of trained soldiers, but I'm led to believe that the Whites had far more, in addition to most of the old experienced military leadership and the Cossacks. 2) Possibly related to 1), what were the military benefits/costs of political commissars in the ranks? Were they ultimately a useful innovation or a harmful one? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 02:42
|
|
