|
Knowing the presence of his son, the commander in charge clearly sabotaged the offensive to ensure the rebels got away. Why oh why does the Empire tolerate such incompetence, given the same leader also presided over the failure at Yavin??
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Knowing the presence of his son, the commander in charge clearly sabotaged the offensive to ensure the rebels got away. Why oh why does the Empire tolerate such incompetence, given the same leader also presided over the failure at Yavin?? Nepotism. The commander in charge is a close personal friend of the Emperor. To bring this back on topic, Cracked had an article about fuckup generals, and Gideon Pillow had basically the relationship described, only he was more cowardly than anything else. EDIT: U.S. Grant posted:I had known General Pillow in Mexico, and judged that with any force, no matter how small, I could march up to within gunshot of any intrenchments he was given to hold. I said this to the officers of my staff at the time. I knew that Floyd was in command, but he was no soldier, and I judged that he would yield to Pillow’s pretensions. wdarkk fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
The commander of Vader's flagship also got his job because he was considered politically untrustworthy and was put somewhere Vader could murder him at a moment's notice, so not exactly someone you can trust with such an important operation. The land commander had someone exiled for pointing out the obvious stability flaw in AT-ATs. e:  again
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Here's another good quote about Pillow:quote:"He thought you'd rather get hold of him than any other man in the Southern Confederacy," Buckner told Grant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:
Exactly, that doesn't make any sense. I'd try hurling a few at the thing anyway, just to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Is this really worth arguing about guys
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
hat trick There's a whole plot in the Zahn novels (aka the only good ones) where Coruscant is put under siege by dropping hundreds of cloaked asteroids in the system and they can't enter or leave the planet because they have to keep the shields up. It's implied they don't reach all the way to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:
I hate doing science fiction answers, but maybe the shield generator has a limited area of coverage and the landers had to land outside of the area to drop off troops and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
As penance for the nerd derail, does anyone know of a good book covering Sherman's march?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:I hate doing science fiction answers, but maybe the shield generator has a limited area of coverage and the landers had to land outside of the area to drop off troops and stuff. But then how did the AT-AT's get through the shield once they landed? None of that battle makes a lick of sense. Koramei posted:Is this really worth arguing about guys Fine, I'll stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
You can't starve out the rebels when they can just run the blockade as soon as they get everybody onto transports. All they needed to do was jump into hyperspace and it was smooth sailing from there. The only guy who the blockade could catch was some loser with a piece of junk hyperdrive. Apparently Vader had planned to do a long-distance orbital bombardment and hide in the asteroid field so that the rebels wouldn't know to raise the shield, but some jerk messed that up and got close enough so the rebels could detect them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:But then how did the AT-AT's get through the shield once they landed? None of that battle makes a lick of sense. The shield would stop turbolaser bolts but was basically a flat/semicircular shield in the sky above the base. The imperials land beyond the shield and walk to the base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
If you wanna talk about this stuff (and by God I do) try it here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3338643
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Remember in the Dune movie (David Lynch) where Gurney Halleck and Paul Atreides had that personal shield which blocks projectiles but not slow-moving blades? I figured it was like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:As penance for the nerd derail, does anyone know of a good book covering Sherman's march? The Hard Hand of War by Mark Grimsley discusses the nature of the march, while Nothing But Victory by Steven Woodworth has a few chapters, but is a history of the Army of Tennessee as a whole. In reference to earlier discussion about open order in the Civil War, the latter contains accounts as early as Belmont of Union soldiers "abandoning their tight formations" en masse to "take cover [on the attack] behind logs and trees in Indian fashion" and envelop the flanks of the Confederate camp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:As penance for the nerd derail, does anyone know of a good book covering Sherman's march? Sherman's personal Memoirs is actually a pretty good read if you're interested in a front-seat perspective. He's got quite the droll sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sherman's personal Memoirs is actually a pretty good read if you're interested in a front-seat perspective. He's got quite the droll sense of humor. Available from Gutenberg, as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Re: Bookchat. https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/133084-goons-and-their-military-history
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Re: Bookchat. Awesome, joined!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Re: Bookchat. http://www.somethingisawful.com ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdUHDDj7fhk
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Yes. Placeholder. e: Anyone in the group should be able to add/comment/whatever on books. I've started a couple categories based on what's been brought up in the thread, but it's a big thread. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
God drat that's a good interview. Like that time Billy Bob Thornton was on Q (  ), but borne out of genius, rather than rear end in a top hat-ish idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
I just started reading 1914 by Max Hastings and holy poo poo. I had a notion that Willheim II was kind of a manchild, but then I get to his brother calling the French (along with Russians, Italians, etc) "Non-whites".  This is seriously entertaining, and the war hasn't even started yet! Also, housemaids having seven hours of rest per every two weeks in Vienna. It's also funny that the guy that would have tried to stop an Austrian-Russian war was the one that got murdered first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
If anyone wants to join that Goodreads group, feel free. I'd like to eventually build a bookshelf with everyone's recommendations and some notes on the books like "accessibly written and makes a great job of exploring the Battle of Midway but largely from the view of Japanese sources. Dispels a lot of myths regarding US naval power while still revealing the truth that they lacked many of the flaws the Japanese fleet and command structure suffered from. Also, janky ebook display of special characters in Japanese names" for Shattered Sword. E: I will be checking through the options later to make sure everyone is able to add books and folders. I made a few people moderators before heading to work this morning (basically anyone who joined up before this morning) and am pretty new to some of the more nitty gritty details of how GR works. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Everyone makes fun of AT-ATs, but what would have been the best way to attack Echo Base on Hoth? Sabotage the Ion Cannon with a precision strike team then pick them off as they try to escape. Also please don't give Max Hastings money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Also please don't give Max Hastings money. Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Sabotage the Ion Cannon with a precision strike team then pick them off as they try to escape. You think they'll be able to use the ion cannon to effect? In our moment of triumph? You overestimate their chances. Any suggestions on where to jump in online or in books to read about the evolution of 19th century naval warfare into what we see today as a person who is wholly out of touch with that aspect of combat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
I must second this question of why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
DoubleAughtMeowMix posted:Any suggestions on where to jump in online or in books to read about the evolution of 19th century naval warfare into what we see today as a person who is wholly out of touch with that aspect of combat? Start with the ACW, then immediately go to the Pacific, then the Dreadnought, then WWI. After WWI people realize "god drat we can fly gently caress battleships" and along come the carriers. The rest is guidance systems and missiles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I must second this question of why. Not to put words in Allpro's mouth, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because Hastings basically just rehashes other people's arguments in a package that's a bit more accessible to the average reader. A lot of his conclusions about German war guilt in 1914, for example, are basically just a tl;dr of Fritz Fischer's Germany's War Aims. Fischer's work was really, really instrumental in changing the way we look at the outbreak of WW1 and more or less turned the field on its head back in the 60s. Basically he's an English public intellectual who does a lot of synthetic work for a general audience. The importance of that kind of work can be debated (I, personally, think it's pretty valuable and necessary) but it's more literature/journalism than history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Isn't he also the horrifically pro-Brit biased one who thought the world would be better off with more colonialism so that we could educate those drat darkies, or was that a different one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
I don't think so, he is ruthless when it comes to pointing out British mistakes and flaws during WW2. And not just Montgomery's! I've read Armageddon and Retribution a few times each and I literally can't think of a single awful sentiment of his own that he offers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Well, certainly don't give Max Boot any of your money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Isn't he also the horrifically pro-Brit biased one who thought the world would be better off with more colonialism so that we could educate those drat darkies, or was that a different one? Wasn't that Niall Fergunson? Maybe I'm getting my historians mixed up.  Anyways, I can kind of see where you are coming from, but it's really, really hard to get good history books in my city. Seeing an Ian Kershaw book about Hitler here, completely surrounded by "Maybe Hitler could see the future/Had dark powers/Was a genius and de came to Argentina - here's how" stuff is par for the course here, and I supposed I got lucky when I nabbed the only copies of 1914 and All Hell Let Loose that the bookstore had. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Not to put words in Allpro's mouth, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because Hastings basically just rehashes other people's arguments in a package that's a bit more accessible to the average reader. A lot of his conclusions about German war guilt in 1914, for example, are basically just a tl;dr of Fritz Fischer's Germany's War Aims. Fischer's work was really, really instrumental in changing the way we look at the outbreak of WW1 and more or less turned the field on its head back in the 60s. Actually it's more that, at least from what I heard from colleagues when I was in England, he's a conceited rear end who regularly opines on matters he doesn't understand but because he's a very popular and prolific writer his ignorance is taken seriously by people who don't know any better. John Keegan, for all the good he did the field, had the same trouble about certain matters (his weird strawman interpretation of Clausewitz and his utterly awful attempt at writing naval history, to name the most obvious ones). Basically he wants people to think he's Anthony Beevor, but he isn't. Beevor's actually an example of doing "popular history" really, really drat well while including a lot of useful stuff for academics at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Isn't he also the horrifically pro-Brit biased one who thought the world would be better off with more colonialism so that we could educate those drat darkies, or was that a different one? That's Niall Ferguson, possibly the worst historian I'm familiar with besides David "lets grossly inflate Dresden bombing deaths and also be a Holocaust denier" Irving VVVVVV I will admit that it's a worst-of comparison on the scale of "Fukushima is the second worst nuclear reactor incident after Chernobyl" gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's Niall Ferguson, possibly the worst historian I'm familiar with besides David "lets grossly inflate Dresden bombing deaths and also be a Holocaust denier" Irving OK, I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do. I'm going to defend Niall Ferguson. Please don't compare Niall Ferguson to David Irving. Niall Ferguson's a lazy hack who writes lovely, historically inept books about "everything you know about X is wrong" because it keeps him in the limelight, but he's nowhere near the level of David Irving and comparing him to Irving is totally unfair. David Irving is loving human sewage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Wait, whats wrong with Max Boot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Wait, whats wrong with Max Boot? He's basically a low-rent Victor Davis Hanson, except without the academic rigor. He's a big neocon jagoff, but not in the "warped intellectual" sense where you could see them putting decent work together at some point in their career, just in the "raaargh America best bleghghgegh" Fox News talking head blowhard way. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:57
|
|