Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

SeanBeansShako posted:

Chiang Kai-shek could have gone cruising for chicks in one and throw some litter from them at Mao.

A general in a car throws litter at a dumpy bouffant-sporting sperg walking along the shoulder. Shuddering with unrequited indignity, the bouffanted outcast stoops to pick up the instrument of his shame.

The litter is a crumpled up drawing of dickbutt.

Mao Zedong then vows revenge against all which that general symbolizes.

# ? May 30, 2014 14:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 07:02

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

gradenko_2000 posted:

You could the Japanese a couple hundred Panthers by 1942 and they'd just get Jabo'd to death by American airpower

What would they do with the Panthers? Ship them from atoll to atoll? They would likely get dug in somewhere in Manchuria and not end up doing anything useful.

Azran posted:

I've heard a lot of complaints about the idea of a constantly retreating Soviet army during Barbarossa. Considering there's a lot of stuff that's just wrong that keeps getting repeated in modern media about the Red Army, what's the truth of the matter on this one?

The Red Army wasn't running Eastward as fast as their legs could carry them, they were retreating strategically, trading space for time. Remember that the Red Army trained for a war where a conflict was officially declared, and then both armies would deploy while border forces skirmished. The retreating units bought time for that deployment.

Here is what a typical unit that had their poo poo together would be doing: attacking the enemy when they can, and covering the retreat of units that didn't.

Arquinsiel posted:

This sounds even more complex than the American system. I think I'm just going to give up on it.

But wait, I didn't tell you about the Objects!

jng2058 posted:

This is a pretty good place to start. The short form is that the Red Army launched a number of local counter-attacks that were generally disastrous but forced the Germans to expend men and supplies that they would later need in the winter.

Oh man, Myths and Realities was made into a video? Sweet, going to link people to this now instead of the PDF.

# ? May 30, 2014 17:54

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

Ensign Expendable posted:

But wait, I didn't tell you about the Objects!

Oh go on then...

# ? May 30, 2014 17:57

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Arquinsiel posted:

Oh go on then...

In proud Soviet tradition, tanks received factory designations. Sometimes they were just numbers (212, 111, 240) indicating the factory, sometimes the factory indicator was a letter. In cases of tanks, the letter would be replaced with a T when the army referred to it (exception: BT series), while the three letter code would be prefixed with a T. This was in no way confusing, except Kirov Factory was the best factory[1] and its chief engineer was the brilliant and handsome Joseph Kotin[2], they did everything in their special way. If the tank series had a special name (like the KV), it might get used instead of T, making things like "tank 220", "T-220", and "KV-220" the same thing. Oh, also they loved reusing the special indices: the KV-3 could refer to the T-150 or the "second KV-3", tank 233.

Eventually, instead of calling things "tank ###" or "SPG ###", the name "object" was standardized. However, soon it was time for a new series of tanks! You can't go much higher than Voroshilov, so they were named after Stalin, IS. The first IS came out of the KV-13, with the same 76 mm gun, and was called IS-1. The second had a different turret and a 122 mm gun, and was called IS-2. Then there was the 85 mm gun IS-3 and 107 mm gun IS-4.

The IS-3 was the best, but you couldn't call the first production tank in a series 3, so it was renamed IS-85 (but later retroactively renamed IS-1 when the IS-3 from the second round of armament trials was indexed IS-2, but also IS-122 sometimes following the old conventions). In factory documentation, the IS-2 remained "Object 240". Some army types didn't notice that the tank they had was drastically different, so they called it KV-122, even though the KV-122 was an experimental tank made much later.

Then there was the IS-5 (IS-100), the competitor to which was the IS-4, but not the IS-4 you're thinking of. The IS-4 you're thinking of is the Object 701 that came before the IS-3 (Object 703), but also was a different model than the two IS-3s from before.

The IS-6 (Objects 252-253) and IS-7 (Object 260) were reasonably indexed, but then there was the IS-8 (Object 730, developed under the index IS-5) that was renamed IS-9, IS-10, and eventually T-10 after Stalin's death.

[1]Source: Joseph Kotin
[2]Source: Joseph Kotin

Join me next time when we find out that the modernized SU-35 is a SU-35M, but a modernized SU-12 is a SU-15.

Edit: Kirov Factory was sometimes reasonable, and their T-50 project was always called T-50, except when it was called Kirovets (not to be confused with Kirovets-1, which was the IS-3. No, not that IS-3, the other IS-3.)

Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 30, 2014

# ? May 30, 2014 18:32

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Ensign Expendable posted:

In proud Soviet tradition, tanks received factory designations. Sometimes they were just numbers (212, 111, 240) indicating the factory, sometimes the factory indicator was a letter. In cases of tanks, the letter would be replaced with a T when the army referred to it (exception: BT series), while the three letter code would be prefixed with a T. This was in no way confusing, except Kirov Factory was the best factory[1] and its chief engineer was the brilliant and handsome Joseph Kotin[2], they did everything in their special way. If the tank series had a special name (like the KV), it might get used instead of T, making things like "tank 220", "T-220", and "KV-220" the same thing. Oh, also they loved reusing the special indices: the KV-3 could refer to the T-150 or the "second KV-3", tank 233.

Eventually, instead of calling things "tank ###" or "SPG ###", the name "object" was standardized. However, soon it was time for a new series of tanks! You can't go much higher than Voroshilov, so they were named after Stalin, IS. The first IS came out of the KV-13, with the same 76 mm gun, and was called IS-1. The second had a different turret and a 122 mm gun, and was called IS-2. Then there was the 85 mm gun IS-3 and 107 mm gun IS-4.

The IS-3 was the best, but you couldn't call the first production tank in a series 3, so it was renamed IS-85 (but later retroactively renamed IS-1 when the IS-3 from the second round of armament trials was indexed IS-2, but also IS-122 sometimes following the old conventions). In factory documentation, the IS-2 remained "Object 240". Some army types didn't notice that the tank they had was drastically different, so they called it KV-122, even though the KV-122 was an experimental tank made much later.

Then there was the IS-5 (IS-100), the competitor to which was the IS-4, but not the IS-4 you're thinking of. The IS-4 you're thinking of is the Object 701 that came before the IS-3 (Object 703), but also was a different model than the two IS-3s from before.

The IS-6 (Objects 252-253) and IS-7 (Object 260) were reasonably indexed, but then there was the IS-8 (Object 730, developed under the index IS-5) that was renamed IS-9, IS-10, and eventually T-10 after Stalin's death.

[1]Source: Joseph Kotin
[2]Source: Joseph Kotin

Join me next time when we find out that the modernized SU-35 is a SU-35M, but a modernized SU-12 is a SU-15.

Edit: Kirov Factory was sometimes reasonable, and their T-50 project was always called T-50, except when it was called Kirovets (not to be confused with Kirovets-1, which was the IS-3. No, not that IS-3, the other IS-3.)

This poo poo right here is the reason the Soviets lost the Cold War.

# ? May 30, 2014 18:42

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

Ensign Expendable posted:

In proud Soviet tradition, tanks received factory designations. Sometimes they were just numbers (212, 111, 240) indicating the factory, sometimes the factory indicator was a letter. In cases of tanks, the letter would be replaced with a T when the army referred to it (exception: BT series), while the three letter code would be prefixed with a T. This was in no way confusing, except Kirov Factory was the best factory[1] and its chief engineer was the brilliant and handsome Joseph Kotin[2], they did everything in their special way. If the tank series had a special name (like the KV), it might get used instead of T, making things like "tank 220", "T-220", and "KV-220" the same thing. Oh, also they loved reusing the special indices: the KV-3 could refer to the T-150 or the "second KV-3", tank 233.

Eventually, instead of calling things "tank ###" or "SPG ###", the name "object" was standardized. However, soon it was time for a new series of tanks! You can't go much higher than Voroshilov, so they were named after Stalin, IS. The first IS came out of the KV-13, with the same 76 mm gun, and was called IS-1. The second had a different turret and a 122 mm gun, and was called IS-2. Then there was the 85 mm gun IS-3 and 107 mm gun IS-4.

The IS-3 was the best, but you couldn't call the first production tank in a series 3, so it was renamed IS-85 (but later retroactively renamed IS-1 when the IS-3 from the second round of armament trials was indexed IS-2, but also IS-122 sometimes following the old conventions). In factory documentation, the IS-2 remained "Object 240". Some army types didn't notice that the tank they had was drastically different, so they called it KV-122, even though the KV-122 was an experimental tank made much later.

Then there was the IS-5 (IS-100), the competitor to which was the IS-4, but not the IS-4 you're thinking of. The IS-4 you're thinking of is the Object 701 that came before the IS-3 (Object 703), but also was a different model than the two IS-3s from before.

The IS-6 (Objects 252-253) and IS-7 (Object 260) were reasonably indexed, but then there was the IS-8 (Object 730, developed under the index IS-5) that was renamed IS-9, IS-10, and eventually T-10 after Stalin's death.

[1]Source: Joseph Kotin
[2]Source: Joseph Kotin

Join me next time when we find out that the modernized SU-35 is a SU-35M, but a modernized SU-12 is a SU-15.

Edit: Kirov Factory was sometimes reasonable, and their T-50 project was always called T-50, except when it was called Kirovets (not to be confused with Kirovets-1, which was the IS-3. No, not that IS-3, the other IS-3.)

I thank you for your sacrifices to nerd enlightenment. That's certainly some system they had there :stare:

# ? May 30, 2014 18:43

mastervj: Feb 25, 2011

Ensign Expendable posted:

In proud Soviet tradition, tanks received factory designations. Sometimes they were just numbers (212, 111, 240) indicating the factory, sometimes the factory indicator was a letter. In cases of tanks, the letter would be replaced with a T when the army referred to it (exception: BT series), while the three letter code would be prefixed with a T. This was in no way confusing, except Kirov Factory was the best factory[1] and its chief engineer was the brilliant and handsome Joseph Kotin[2], they did everything in their special way. If the tank series had a special name (like the KV), it might get used instead of T, making things like "tank 220", "T-220", and "KV-220" the same thing. Oh, also they loved reusing the special indices: the KV-3 could refer to the T-150 or the "second KV-3", tank 233.

Eventually, instead of calling things "tank ###" or "SPG ###", the name "object" was standardized. However, soon it was time for a new series of tanks! You can't go much higher than Voroshilov, so they were named after Stalin, IS. The first IS came out of the KV-13, with the same 76 mm gun, and was called IS-1. The second had a different turret and a 122 mm gun, and was called IS-2. Then there was the 85 mm gun IS-3 and 107 mm gun IS-4.

The IS-3 was the best, but you couldn't call the first production tank in a series 3, so it was renamed IS-85 (but later retroactively renamed IS-1 when the IS-3 from the second round of armament trials was indexed IS-2, but also IS-122 sometimes following the old conventions). In factory documentation, the IS-2 remained "Object 240". Some army types didn't notice that the tank they had was drastically different, so they called it KV-122, even though the KV-122 was an experimental tank made much later.

Then there was the IS-5 (IS-100), the competitor to which was the IS-4, but not the IS-4 you're thinking of. The IS-4 you're thinking of is the Object 701 that came before the IS-3 (Object 703), but also was a different model than the two IS-3s from before.

The IS-6 (Objects 252-253) and IS-7 (Object 260) were reasonably indexed, but then there was the IS-8 (Object 730, developed under the index IS-5) that was renamed IS-9, IS-10, and eventually T-10 after Stalin's death.

[1]Source: Joseph Kotin
[2]Source: Joseph Kotin

Join me next time when we find out that the modernized SU-35 is a SU-35M, but a modernized SU-12 is a SU-15.

Edit: Kirov Factory was sometimes reasonable, and their T-50 project was always called T-50, except when it was called Kirovets (not to be confused with Kirovets-1, which was the IS-3. No, not that IS-3, the other IS-3.)

Ok, admit it: you just made this poo poo up.

(war is hell indeed)

# ? May 30, 2014 19:19

Pornographic Memory: Dec 17, 2008

Ensign Expendable posted:

In proud Soviet tradition, tanks received factory designations. Sometimes they were just numbers (212, 111, 240) indicating the factory, sometimes the factory indicator was a letter. In cases of tanks, the letter would be replaced with a T when the army referred to it (exception: BT series), while the three letter code would be prefixed with a T. This was in no way confusing, except Kirov Factory was the best factory[1] and its chief engineer was the brilliant and handsome Joseph Kotin[2], they did everything in their special way. If the tank series had a special name (like the KV), it might get used instead of T, making things like "tank 220", "T-220", and "KV-220" the same thing. Oh, also they loved reusing the special indices: the KV-3 could refer to the T-150 or the "second KV-3", tank 233.

Eventually, instead of calling things "tank ###" or "SPG ###", the name "object" was standardized. However, soon it was time for a new series of tanks! You can't go much higher than Voroshilov, so they were named after Stalin, IS. The first IS came out of the KV-13, with the same 76 mm gun, and was called IS-1. The second had a different turret and a 122 mm gun, and was called IS-2. Then there was the 85 mm gun IS-3 and 107 mm gun IS-4.

The IS-3 was the best, but you couldn't call the first production tank in a series 3, so it was renamed IS-85 (but later retroactively renamed IS-1 when the IS-3 from the second round of armament trials was indexed IS-2, but also IS-122 sometimes following the old conventions). In factory documentation, the IS-2 remained "Object 240". Some army types didn't notice that the tank they had was drastically different, so they called it KV-122, even though the KV-122 was an experimental tank made much later.

Then there was the IS-5 (IS-100), the competitor to which was the IS-4, but not the IS-4 you're thinking of. The IS-4 you're thinking of is the Object 701 that came before the IS-3 (Object 703), but also was a different model than the two IS-3s from before.

The IS-6 (Objects 252-253) and IS-7 (Object 260) were reasonably indexed, but then there was the IS-8 (Object 730, developed under the index IS-5) that was renamed IS-9, IS-10, and eventually T-10 after Stalin's death.

[1]Source: Joseph Kotin
[2]Source: Joseph Kotin

Join me next time when we find out that the modernized SU-35 is a SU-35M, but a modernized SU-12 is a SU-15.

Edit: Kirov Factory was sometimes reasonable, and their T-50 project was always called T-50, except when it was called Kirovets (not to be confused with Kirovets-1, which was the IS-3. No, not that IS-3, the other IS-3.)

Was this system the result, or the cause, of excessive vodka consumption? Or was it a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the guys giving these things names were constantly hammered, making their names even more confusing, thus requiring further alcohol consumption by those who have this "system" inflicted on them to try and cope?

# ? May 30, 2014 20:51

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Pornographic Memory posted:

Was this system the result, or the cause, of excessive vodka consumption? Or was it a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the guys giving these things names were constantly hammered, making their names even more confusing, thus requiring further alcohol consumption by those who have this "system" inflicted on them to try and cope?

Keeping up a coherent naming system is hard during peace time, far more so when half your factories are evacuated, the other half is under attack or siege, and different factories have different supply issues and different ways of overcoming them (most of which are not really mentioned anywhere, btw). All the while trying to adapt to constantly evolving battlefield conditions and lessons learned.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:12

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Ensign Expendable posted:

The Red Army wasn't running Eastward as fast as their legs could carry them, they were retreating strategically, trading space for time. Remember that the Red Army trained for a war where a conflict was officially declared, and then both armies would deploy while border forces skirmished. The retreating units bought time for that deployment.

If anything the large number of encirclements that the Red Army was faced with in the opening stages showed that they were a bit TOO reluctant to pull back troops when it was necessary.

Not like the Germans were all that much better at it themselves when the tide changed

Though I do like how the same day Order 227 was signed Stalin also gave the Caucus commander permission to draw back to more defensive positions. A nice little example of how he was nowhere close to Hitler in the "I AM GREAT GENERAL!" level.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:22

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

Well, unlike Hitler, Stalin wasn't regularly high on meth.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:37

wdarkk: Oct 26, 2007; Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten

JaucheCharly posted:

Well, unlike Hitler, Stalin wasn't regularly high on meth.

What about Syphilis?

# ? May 30, 2014 21:39

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

I think I remember hearing somewhere that much like Churchill, Stalin was almost constantly boozed up. True/false?

# ? May 30, 2014 21:46

meatbag: Apr 2, 2007; Clapping Larry

He certainly enjoyed getting other people drunk, but he himself reportedly preferred weak, almost clear georgian wine.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:48

Rodrigo Diaz: Apr 16, 2007; Knights who are at the wars eat their bread in sorrow;
their ease is weariness and sweat;
they have one good day after many bad

wdarkk posted:

What about Syphilis?

you can't get high off syphilis.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:50

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

That's pretty sure a smear, but he most likely had Parkinson's. There are videos that were edited, so that they didn't show his tremor. Dr. Morell fixed him up with all kinds of stuff.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:50

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Taerkar posted:

If anything the large number of encirclements that the Red Army was faced with in the opening stages showed that they were a bit TOO reluctant to pull back troops when it was necessary.

The tendency was to not do it without signed, written orders. Which kind of put a damper on that whole modern communications business.

Pornographic Memory posted:

Was this system the result, or the cause, of excessive vodka consumption? Or was it a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the guys giving these things names were constantly hammered, making their names even more confusing, thus requiring further alcohol consumption by those who have this "system" inflicted on them to try and cope?

This system was a result of Kotin being a prima donna. Other factories had their poo poo together and everything was much more understandable. For instance, the T-34 went from A-34 (prototype designation) to T-34 (factory and field designation). T-44 was T-44 throughout its development. T-54? Object 137 to T-54 mod. whatever. No one else had these problems.

# ? May 30, 2014 21:50

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Man, googling Joseph Kotin just alerted me that Google has at some point digitised a ton of back issues of LIFE magazine. A lot of them are well worth reading. e.g.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L1MEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA42&ots=7byXRuOTGj&dq=Joseph%20Kotin&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also there's a fascinating (and fawning) biography of him at:

http://kpi.ua/en/node/8382

EDIT: Seriously, these old LIFE issues are awesome.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...lingrad&f=false

A MIGHTY GERMAN ARMY WALLOWS IN DEFEAT

Page 39 is really touching.

Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 30, 2014

# ? May 30, 2014 22:05

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Jesus, that translation is like Google Translate.

# ? May 30, 2014 22:10

Mr Havafap: Mar 27, 2005; The wurst kind of sausage

Hogge Wild posted:

That looks really cool. How unbiased is it?

It's good, if with a slight tendency to focus on the British role, and the Germans of course.
The French, the Russians and the rest tend to fall in the also-ran category.
For instance in episode 3 the only casualty figure given (8 000) is that of the BEF, which while huge compared to a total of 75 000 in the BEF at the time, is piffling when compared to the French and German losses during the same period, and of which no mention is made.
I suppose this is to be expected of a BBC production geared mainly towards an English speaking audience, just something to keep in mind.

But as others have pointed out the footage (which they thank god respected the frame rate of so we don't get that jerky sped-up action ) is a gold mine and so are the interviews.

# ? May 30, 2014 22:51

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

meatbag posted:

He certainly enjoyed getting other people drunk, but he himself reportedly preferred weak, almost clear georgian wine.

Stalin used broken up cigarettes in his pipe instead of proper tobacco, that's enough to deem him a monster regardless of his alcohol deficiencies.

# ? May 30, 2014 23:18

Frostwerks: Sep 24, 2007; by Lowtax

wdarkk posted:

What about Syphilis?

Syphilis: Not even once.

steinrokkan posted:

Stalin used broken up cigarettes in his pipe instead of proper tobacco, that's enough to deem him a monster regardless of his alcohol deficiencies.

But did he use menthols?

Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 00:51 on May 31, 2014

# ? May 31, 2014 00:48

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

meatbag posted:

He certainly enjoyed getting other people drunk, but he himself reportedly preferred weak, almost clear georgian wine.

Can't blame him there; Georgian wine is delicious. Hard to come by in the States, though.

# ? May 31, 2014 04:42

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Can't blame him there; Georgian wine is delicious. Hard to come by in the States, though.

What? Georgian wine is easy to come by in the states: http://www.georgiawine.com/georgia-wineries

Yes, I know.

# ? May 31, 2014 04:50

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

ulmont posted:

http://www.georgiawine.com/georgia-wineries

I was expecting the usual assortment of 150-year old sour grapes.

# ? May 31, 2014 07:12

Tevery Best: Oct 11, 2013; Hewlo Furriend

Whatever Stalin used to drink, he definitely was in the business of getting utterly shitfaced in the best Soviet fashion. I don't think I've ever read any sort of story about anyone's personal meeting with Stalin that didn't begin with either "we were in an official meeting" or "we were so drunk we didn't know which way was up".

# ? May 31, 2014 07:35

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

Completely shitfaced with Stalin and people like Beria. Imagine being the guy/girl pouring the drinks. Very, very scary. Beria. That guy is the stuff of nightmares.

# ? May 31, 2014 07:51

Don Gato: Apr 28, 2013; Actually a bipedal cat.; Grimey Drawer

Tevery Best posted:

Whatever Stalin used to drink, he definitely was in the business of getting utterly shitfaced in the best Soviet fashion. I don't think I've ever read any sort of story about anyone's personal meeting with Stalin that didn't begin with either "we were in an official meeting" or "we were so drunk we didn't know which way was up".

The Soviet Union makes perfect sense now.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 01:27

cosmosisjones: Oct 10, 2012

I've been reading about the scramble for africa and it talks a bit about tribal african warfare. Are there any good books or sources that cover that in depth? Particularly the Zulu?

# ? Jun 1, 2014 01:52

Kellsterik: Mar 30, 2012

Stalingrad: literally a battle of egos between Hitler and Stalin over the city that's named after him. That is the only reason they fought over it. Thanks History channel!

# ? Jun 1, 2014 03:46

Don Gato: Apr 28, 2013; Actually a bipedal cat.; Grimey Drawer

Kellsterik posted:

Stalingrad: literally a battle of egos between Hitler and Stalin over the city that's named after him. That is the only reason they fought over it. Thanks History channel!

That is 100% true if you ignore every other reason the Germans and Soviets wanted it, for example it being the entryway to the Baku oil fields, its factories, cutting off the Caspian Sea trade routes and cutting off Soviet Lend-Lease via Iran. Compared to everything else this documentary has asserted as fact, it's historically accurate :histdowns:

# ? Jun 1, 2014 04:41

Dopilsya: Apr 3, 2010

HEY GAL posted:

Does anyone have a link to a lexicon of early modern/medieval types of fabric? I'm reading about a fabric shipment theft and when they itemize what went missing I'd like to see exactly what kind of fabric it was, but the names are unfamiliar to me and the spelling's weird anyway.

I don't know how useful this might be for your situation, but Fabric Savvy has pictures and tips/uses for different kinds. It has pages for linen and hemp, but I don't know whether things have changed too much for that to be useful to you or what other types of fabric you need.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 09:06

Ofaloaf: Feb 15, 2013

cosmosisjones posted:

I've been reading about the scramble for africa and it talks a bit about tribal african warfare. Are there any good books or sources that cover that in depth? Particularly the Zulu?

I've been slowly working through The Washing of the Spears, which is more of a general history of events leading up to and surrounding the Anglo-Zulu War, but the author makes a good effort at explaining how Zulu warfare was what it was and what made it so effective compared to other Bantu tribes' methods of war.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 10:38

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

I went to a Thirty Years' War reenactment this weekend for the first time, and I'm going to be going to others regularly every time I'm in Germany. Including a big one planned for England in August, that should be great.

Scattered remarks:

One of the people there was an archaeologist who worked on the Battle of L�tzen mass grave and the Battle of Wittstock mass grave. She said that a number of people in the L�tzen grave had been shot under the chin or in the mouth. She wondered whether it was some sort of once-in-a-lifetime lucky shot, maybe from someone on foot shooting someone on a horse so you could have a line to their chin. I think it sounds like, well, something else.

The musket fork is the worst invention on earth; the little spike at the bottom is exactly the right width to get stuck between the cobblestones of a city street, which will stop you short while you're walking and nearly jerk an inexperienced person over. Also, if you perform the drill to load and fire the musket with a fork as well, you have to sort of stack them together and hold both in your off-hand. Of course one slides one way and one the other.

There's a hundred thousand separate steps to load and fire a matchlock musket and most of them involve attempting not to ash on your own hands by accident, which you will anyway.

I loaded and fired a few times while getting my picture taken and when the dude emails them to me I'll crop them and post them. In that attempt, we had something like...five misfires? Six? My match had burned too short and I got a new one, but that one burned sullenly no matter how violently we whipped it around in a small circle, and it kept stubbing itself out in the pan of powder, which is not what I was expecting from an explosive and a fire source. The first time that happened, I went to adjust the match but forgot to close the pan first and it turned out it was still burning and it went off under my hand. That didn't feel very bad, but I do have a black mark on the pad of my thumb that hasn't gone away. The rest of the times it just refused to burn. "It burned fine when I bought it," said one of the guys with me. "How long ago did you buy it, though?" We agreed that damp had gotten into it.

This really made me think about the proper intervals between pikemen. A musketeer's body is covered with hooks and loops and poo poo sticking out (proto-rapier; at least one dagger; length of burning match stuck between the fingers of your left hand however you want to do it; bandoleer with twelve charges, a bag of bullets, extra match, and a priming bottle; sword belt), at least one of which, possibly two (every fifth man carried a lit lantern; it's how you light the match) is on fire. When the musketeers run between the files of pike to the front, if they are too close you will get caught up on someone, especially if you're new. I had to be unhooked a lot, and then the pike got yelled at.

Turns out it's illegal for me to fire a weapon in Germany without direct supervision until I get some sort of certificate, though (I only pretended to fire during the presentation battle), so at the next event I'll be a pikeman. :getin:

I drilled a little with the pike this time, and it is a really weird feeling. You're trying to hold a 15-foot long shaft of wood vertically with the butt end near your hip, and it wiggles. It wiggles a lot. Then you lower it, which entails standing sort of at the back quarter of the thing while you extend your left arm out as far as it'll go to support it, and you need to keep it at the right angle. The other guy was calmly explaining "You need to find the balance point. No, the balance point. You don't need a lot of power, just dash." I was all :byodood:

, it is going everywhere in the world except where I want it to go, I have no dash.

I have successfully replicated the historical experience of "not knowing what the gently caress you're doing."

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 1, 2014

# ? Jun 1, 2014 16:35

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

How tall/short are you compared to a 30yw soldier, though? Maybe they were tall enough that the fork wasn't likely to catch while walking around. Then again, maybe they were shorter than you. Did your friend the necromancer compile any height data?

# ? Jun 1, 2014 17:15

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Grand Prize Winner posted:

How tall/short are you compared to a 30yw soldier, though? Maybe they were tall enough that the fork wasn't likely to catch while walking around. Then again, maybe they were shorter than you. Did your friend the necromancer compile any height data?

I am 5'7" and decently muscled for a woman, but I'm going to start working out more. I'm shorter than most of the pikemen in this regiment but taller and broader in the shoulders than most of the clothing I've seen in museums. Chronic malnutrition owns hard and is a great lifestyle choice. (Of course, that's no comfort for me in the modern period, since I'm probably going to be shorter than my future opponents as well, until I get that certificate thing.)

I didn't ask her how big they were, but she's not a necromancer, they prefer "death technician," jeez.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 1, 2014

# ? Jun 1, 2014 17:18

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

HEY GAL posted:

I didn't ask her how big they were, but she's not a necromancer, they prefer "death technician," jeez.

Well that probably sounds cooler in German.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 18:20

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Well that probably sounds cooler in German.

Staatlich gepr�fte/r Totenbeschw�rer/Totenbeschw�rerin. They are very particular about being certified.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 18:40

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

ArchangeI posted:

Staatlich gepr�fte/r Totenbeschw�rer/Totenbeschw�rerin. They are very particular about being certified.

Yeah, the paperwork for that is murder.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 18:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 07:02

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

When, roughly speaking, has platoon fire (and/or similar friring drills) replace "one big volley" approach as a default thing to do?

# ? Jun 1, 2014 19:45

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »