|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, the paperwork for that is murder. Bureaucracy, will it ever stop being a dead weight?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:When, roughly speaking, has platoon fire (and/or similar friring drills) replace "one big volley" approach as a default thing to do? Other way around; the volley, or similar things when everyone in a platoon fires at once, are newer. And those start becoming viable only when formations start getting thinner. If your formation is five deep (which is already comparatively thin) it would hurt people if you all fired at once. (Confirming this, French hospital records from the early early 1700s, around the time this was being widely adopted, show that front-rank men would be burnt or even wounded by their rear-rank comrades' fire, since French drill at the time didn't require that the rear-rank men turn a little.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Other way around; the volley, or similar things when everyone in a platoon fires at once, are newer. And those start becoming viable only when formations start getting thinner. If your formation is five deep (which is already comparatively thin) it would hurt people if you all fired at once. (Confirming this, French hospital records from the early early 1700s show that front-rank men would be burnt or even wounded by their rear-rank comrades' fire, since French drill at the time didn't require that the rear-rank men turn a little.) But in Sharpe when the British are sinking the Danish fleet Sharpe describes what its like being on the receiving end of platoon fire. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Cornwell isn't a Historian though. He's a okay-ish fiction author. But speaking of volley fire, has there been example where it was used with success at all? Or is it really just another firing drill that does the job.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Ok, admit it: you just made this poo poo up. Also, the word for maximum range is "greatest random."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But in Sharpe when the British are sinking the Danish fleet Sharpe describes what its like being on the receiving end of platoon fire. SeanBeansShako posted:But speaking of volley fire, has there been example where it was used with success at all? Or is it really just another firing drill that does the job. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
 Battle of the Bulge
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Well, the Battle of the Bulge took place during the winter, so they got that much right I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Are those T-34s standing in for Shermans? Or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
I'll admit that I only glanced at the picture and for a moment believed I was watching Cromwell tanks. But yeah, I'm guess its one of those "these M48s with a Balkenkreuz are totally Kingtigers guys, you just have to act the part" type of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Kind of reminds me of some of those medium budget war movies from the seventies where they had no choice but had to use Soviet block equipment with cardboard around the more obvious bits.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I'll admit that I only glanced at the picture and for a moment believed I was watching Cromwell tanks. For shame, barrel length should have given away that these are Comets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Are those T-34s standing in for Shermans? Or something? Yup, four 85s and a 76. ArchangeI posted:I'll admit that I only glanced at the picture and for a moment believed I was watching Cromwell tanks. But yeah, I'm guess its one of those "these M48s with a Balkenkreuz are totally Kingtigers guys, you just have to act the part" type of things. Less embarrassing than the Company of Heroes tank.  Check it out, it's a...something. But it's German! Edit: I also watched a History Channel documentary on the T-34 where they showed more footage of T-26es than T-34s. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:She said that a number of people in the Lützen 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. What are you hinting at here? It sounds a bit to me like people delivering the coup de grace to the wounded, but doing that with 17th century firearms seems really inefficient to me. It would almost certainly be easier to just use a dagger. On the other hand I guess it would be a lot more palatable to use even a matchlock pistol on one's self if mortally wounded and trying to end your suffering than a knife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What are you hinting at here? It sounds a bit to me like people delivering the coup de grace to the wounded, but doing that with 17th century firearms seems really inefficient to me. It would almost certainly be easier to just use a dagger. Edit: I guess you could use a pistol, if you had one. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:
Are the Germans using Soviet tanks too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What are you hinting at here? It sounds a bit to me like people delivering the coup de grace to the wounded, but doing that with 17th century firearms seems really inefficient to me. It would almost certainly be easier to just use a dagger. Well, thinking morbidly, at the end of a day's fighting you'd probably have people around with loaded muskets, and shooting the drat things is probably less bothersome than trying to clean them out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
 History!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:
I wonder if the Soviets could have made it to the Rhine if they had Pattons in 1944.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Kind of reminds me of some of those medium budget war movies from the seventies where they had no choice but had to use Soviet block equipment with cardboard around the more obvious bits. Patton didn't even bother trying to disguise the fact that all the tanks were army surplus. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:34
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Patton didn't even bother trying to disguise the fact that all the tanks were army surplus? I'm thinking of movies lower on the Patton scale of things. I can't remember their names as most of them sort of blur together in my head from what I've seen.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I think that's what it was, yeah. And if you shoot yourself in the head it's a big to-do and you have to use your musket fork to pull the lever, I've read about it. Not to question your archeologist friend too much (since, you know, she has a degree in all this) but how did she determine that these were all musket wounds? 17th century arms would be fairly large caliber compared to what we are used to today and fairly low velocity. Any chance that they could be pike wounds? A mounted horseman taking a pike under the chin or to the face at an upward angle would seem to be a pretty logical wound for that kind of combat, and I find it kind of hard to believe that musketeers were tangling at that kind of extreme close range with cavalry with any kind of regularity. Upward angled shooting like that would necessitate the mounted guy being almost on top of you, which is a bit of a problem considering how cumbersome a lot of your 17th century shooting gear is. I'm still skeptical of the coup de grace being done with firearms systematically enough to warrant mention when excavating a mass grave. Powder wasn't exactly trivially cheap or easy to get in the 17th century - it was pretty much a national strategic resource. Plus, just slitting the throats of the wounded is fast, easy, and effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:
Hahaha holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Hey I just read this thread rather than post, but can someone remind me of the eastern front WW2 movie people heartily recommended?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Cross of Iron?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:Hey I just read this thread rather than post, but can someone remind me of the eastern front WW2 movie people heartily recommended? Come and See?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:Hey I just read this thread rather than post, but can someone remind me of the eastern front WW2 movie people heartily recommended? Stalingrad. The 90s one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I don't know if it's possible to "heartily" recommend Come and See.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Not to question your archeologist friend too much (since, you know, she has a degree in all this) but how did she determine that these were all musket wounds? 17th century arms would be fairly large caliber compared to what we are used to today and fairly low velocity. Any chance that they could be pike wounds? A mounted horseman taking a pike under the chin or to the face at an upward angle would seem to be a pretty logical wound for that kind of combat, and I find it kind of hard to believe that musketeers were tangling at that kind of extreme close range with cavalry with any kind of regularity. Upward angled shooting like that would necessitate the mounted guy being almost on top of you, which is a bit of a problem considering how cumbersome a lot of your 17th century shooting gear is. When Gustavus Adolphus was killed after having been wounded and incapacitated at Lützen, he was first stabbed in the chest and arm while lying on the ground, but remained alive after that. Later, after his clothes and equipment had been looted, he was again stabbed several times and then finally shot through the head with a pistol. My guess is that using firearms for finishing off wounded was probably preferable in that not only was it (seemingly) more effective than stabbing people, it was also a lot less messy. Slitting the throat is all well and good but it's harder to do and is going to result in a bigger mess than simply shooting someone in the head. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I'd imagine that the wounds themselves would be different. A blade might scrape bone but might not be too likely to fracture it; even a pike would punch a relatively neat, small hole. A musket/pistol round, especially at point blank, would really tear poo poo up. Source: I once watched an episode of CSI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:Hey I just read this thread rather than post, but can someone remind me of the eastern front WW2 movie people heartily recommended? Enemy at the Gates 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:I don't know if it's possible to "heartily" recommend Come and See.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I'm sorry, it was a documentary or maybe documentary series, not like a feature film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Soviet Storm perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
That sounds right! Thanks, I wrote all of the suggestions down. I watched History Channel back when it was all WW2 all the time (before it turned into poo poo) and got sick of it, but I never felt like I knew enough about the eastern front so this should be good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
There's also this Flash Presentation which is itself pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There's also this Flash Presentation which is itself pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge_(film)quote:The final tank battle is a rough depiction of the Battle of Celles on December 26, 1944 where the U.S. 2nd Armored Division smashed the German 2nd Panzer Division. The film creates the false impression that large numbers of American tanks sacrificed themselves against the heavy Tiger IIs and in the process lured the enemy off course which caused them to run out of gas. In reality, they were already stranded. The tanks used (despite the claims of the producer in an interview which is one of the DVD extras) are not historically accurate. But the American M47 Pattons representing German King Tiger tanks conveyed the superior size and firepower which the M4 Shermans, represented by M24 Chaffees, had to contend with.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Please tell me those two tank columns are charging into each other in some kind of knightly joust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Please tell me those two tank columns are charging into each other in some kind of knightly joust. If I remember the movie correctly they "dance" around the other tanks and force them to use up all their fuel so the american smarts beat the dastardly Germans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 04:30
|
|
