|
FAUXTON posted:I think you could also look at movie budgets for an explanation. Even adjusted for inflation, modern (post-1990) production budgets dominate the "most expensive chart. The oldest movie in the top 15 is 1995's Waterworld, followed by Titanic (1997) and Wild Wild West (1999). #16 is Cleopatra (1963) and after that you have Armageddon (1998) at #39 and Superman (1973) down in the bottom of the list. There are actually no T-34 mod. 1940s that survive to this day. Even 1941 vehicles are rare, only two and a half exist.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:29
|
|
) gate sentries. 
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
You can purchase a T-34-85 for around 50 grand though. That's kind of cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
All the crap that was in Patton and The Battle of the Bulge made Kelly's Heroes all that more remarkable. While it wasn't a true Tiger used in the film (a T-34 undercarriage was used) the top looked like a proper Tiger and Kelly's Heroes didn't have near the budget of the other two. I love that someone looked at the map of the actual town they were filming in and thought about how a Sherman plus infantry would attack it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
gently caress, i remember that movie, It has captain quint singing Panzerlied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JDkdc246QQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Darth Brooks posted:All the crap that was in Patton and The Battle of the Bulge made Kelly's Heroes all that more remarkable. While it wasn't a true Tiger used in the film (a T-34 undercarriage was used) the top looked like a proper Tiger and Kelly's Heroes didn't have near the budget of the other two. I love that someone looked at the map of the actual town they were filming in and thought about how a Sherman plus infantry would attack it. It's a piece of crap. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Don't give me them negative waves. Just look at this poster, it's a beautiful poster. 
Darth Brooks fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
It has Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland and Telly Savallas....what's the modern equivalent to that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
The A team.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It has Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland and Telly Savallas....what's the modern equivalent to that? Three Kings is basically a remake of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
That cast sounds like complete poo poo tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That cast sounds like complete poo poo tbh. It's actually a pretty good movie. Not Kelly's Heroes good, but solid. Also, remember that it came out back in '99, so it's before those guys got old.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Les Morfalous with Jean Paul Belmondo is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Emerging from my trash can to revive this:HEY GAL posted: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 I suspect the thing about the balance point is finding the center of mass of the pike, and hooking that up to the center of mass of yourself, which is roughly your fist's width below your belly button. If you get that lined up then you're probably as strong as a truck with a spear as a hood ornament.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Speaking of which, where do you keep a 15 foot pike and how do you get from A to B?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Having never handled a pike and having only really dealt with sticks from learning and teaching Aikido, I am thinking from your description that you were focusing on the wrong part. I like to give the jos and stuff to new people to watch them suffer and obsess over the end pointing at the other guy. All the work is really being done along the opposite end, like a lever. So if you want to raise the front, you drop the back, go right to go left, left to go right. Half the problems with a two handed weapon joined like that also just comes down to each hand contradicting the other. Not in the "doing opposite things" kind of way, but more like that rear end in a top hat that's arguing with you even though both of you are saying the same thing. JaucheCharly posted:Speaking of which, where do you keep a 15 foot pike and how do you get from A to B? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Speaking of which, where do you keep a 15 foot pike and how do you get from A to B? I don't know poo poo about the early modern period, but I know that alexandrian era phalangites were required to maintain their own sarissas, and had to be able to produce them for inspection. Seems they had to figure it out, and had either some kind of clever way of carrying the thing or strapped 5 of em on a donkey or something. While on the topic, did anyone ever try and introduce shields into the pike squares? I know now from reading more that the early modern pikemen seemed to just rely on their breastplates and helmets for protection, but considering all of the classical world love back then, did anyone try and give them a small shield in the fashion of the phalangites? I know large shields were still sometimes used all the way up until the full switch to gunpowder, and it seems like if the ancient Macedonians could use a two handed spear and shield, so could later period pikemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:While on the topic, did anyone ever try and introduce shields into the pike squares? I know now from reading more that the early modern pikemen seemed to just rely on their breastplates and helmets for protection, but considering all of the classical world love back then, did anyone try and give them a small shield in the fashion of the phalangites? Shields went partially out of fashion because you can't really make a bulletproof shield that's usable. So by the Early Modern period, shields don't make much sense anymore on the battlefield. Of course they had other uses in other contexts, so shields stuck around a bit longer. edit: There was also the thing when shields were widely used, no one had plate armor that was impenetrable to most weapons, but people rolled with cloth armor and mail. By the time you start seeing things like munitions plate and such, shields don't really add much protection anymore. Kemper Boyd fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
The macedonian shield is like a small aspis without the hand strap at the edge. The whole thing is strapped to your arm leaving the hand free to hold the pike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I was suffering and obsessing, yes! But I couldn't figure out what to do. I'm going to think about my center of mass, and about breathing, next time. I am not going to think about sunburn, resentment, the amount of cash all this takes, or the fact that the guy who was teaching me was like twice my height and far too complacent about it. I also want to put a banner on the ceiling that reads "Stop staring at the ceiling and start moving your feet."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
So, I've been told about a rather interesting man  ).The Conflict: The First Balkan War, Battle of Kumanovo (Serbia vs The Ottoman Empire) The Soldier: Ahmed Ademović (Muslim Roma, trumpet musician) - Serbian infantryman The Moustache:  The Situation: The Ottoman army was stuck in an unpleasant position fighting against the Balkan Alliance on several fronts, heavily outnumbered. Their Chief of Staff, Nazim Pasha, refused to go along with the plan "hold the line until the great powers interfere" and instead wanted to attempt to defeat the Alliance armies in detail. Without waiting for his forces to be fully assembled, he organized a surprise attack on the Serbian army, which he believed to be the weakest link of the Alliance. With the Ottoman force outnumbered 2 to 1, his plan relied on surprising the Serbian commanders (who expected the Ottoman army to be in the process of fortifying defensive positions) and crushing the front lines before the reserves could react. His plan was an initial success, and the Serbian commanders were indeed caught with their pants down, taking waaaaaay too long to realize that the fighting was an actual battle. The Feat: And now we come to Ahmed's role in the battle. Imagine this: your commanders think the battle is actually a skirmish with an enemy scouting force, the enemy is pressing you hard, and nobody around you has an idea what to do. So, how does a simple soldier like Ahmed save the day? Well, Ahmed had a brilliant idea and enough steel in his nads to actually do it: He got behind the enemy lines (while being shot at), still carrying his trusty instrument, sounded the Ottoman signal for retreat, got back to his side in the ensuing chaos, and while the enemy was still in complete disarray, sounded the Serbian signal to attack. The Aftermath: While this didn't change the course of battle on its own, it was one of the factors that prevented the collapse of the Serbian line long enough for the reserves to react. Once the Ottomans lost the initiative, well, they were still outnumbered 2 to 1. The battle was over rather quickly. Ahmed received the Order of the Star of Karađorđe for his bravery, and enjoyed a great deal of respect in his hometown. His family experienced a tragedy in 1941 - two of his sons (Redža and Rama) were executed by the Nazis along with half a thousand other Roma from the area. He died in 1965, 92 years old.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:No idea where they keep them, but you bundle them up and tie the whole thing to the bike rack. I mean poo poo, doesn't everyone have to transport a bunch of pikes at some point? How widespread was people just cutting the pikes short? I thought I read about that happening a lot in the English Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Koramei posted:How widespread was people just cutting the pikes short? I thought I read about that happening a lot in the English Civil War. (On that note, artists seemed to really enjoy the big block'o'pikes as a visual motif. It's got to be even, though.)  
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
I know this is a really basic question, but how deep would a pike formation be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Shields went partially out of fashion because you can't really make a bulletproof shield that's usable. So by the Early Modern period, shields don't make much sense anymore on the battlefield. Of course they had other uses in other contexts, so shields stuck around a bit longer. My point is the pike formation was one of the areas where the extra protection of a shield might come in handy since they are not only being shot at but also stabbed by pikes and are having swords swung at them. I know they were not used much if at all, I was wondering if any general or commander read a bunch of classics and gave it go considering how much the renaissance loved antiquity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
A sarissa isn't made of a single piece, it is joined and can be disassembled. Also, notice the counterweigth at the bottom. I saw one of these at the museum at Thessalonika, they seem rather large.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I know this is a really basic question, but how deep would a pike formation be? It's not basic at all, since that varies depending on what year it is and who you're working for. In the late 1500s, a Spanish Escuadron would be made from a Tercio with a paper strength of 3,000 people, which would mean the entire thing, pike and shot, would be about fifty broad and about fifty deep. Spanish formations remained square (you can see tables of square roots scratched into the sides of their sergeants' staff weapons, even now) but got smaller throughout the 1600s, and people developed interesting things to do with the musketeers, which increased the flexibility of the formation. By the mid 1600s, everyone had a regiment/tercio of about 1,000. Swedish formations were four to six deep--very thin--and they broke the people up into more battalions, each of which was smaller. The idea is it's more flexible. Dutch formations were Edit: This is not what you're going to hear in secondary sources until the very newest research, by the way, like the past ten years. People used to think that the Spanish Escuadron remained big and that the only people doing anything interesting with their brains were the Dutch and Swedes. Not true. Edit 2: Imagine the pain of the Spanish sarjento mayor. It's five in the morning, you need to get this poo poo started, your culture doesn't drink coffee yet, and now you have to do math. I know a chick who studies the Spanish--her focus is cavalry, but she said that their handbooks are packed full of little tips, trade secrets, for how to do a bunch of math in your head in order to deploy pike and shot. They liked to think of themselves as the most scientifically advanced infantry, and one part of that was that their formations were "based on mathematics." HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Hey, Hegel, this is not strictly military history, but can you recommend any introductory books to the political changes of the early modern era, i.e. the transition from a largely feudal social structure to something recognizably modern? I guess I might justify asking here since from what little I know the formation of standing armies went a long way towards establishing the foundations of early modern governments. (Preferably something I can pick up on Kindle since I travel a fair bit, but I'll take what I can get - I imagine I have to, with the early modern period.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
If I can ask a follow-up to the pikes question, I understand why you'd deploy your units in long, thin lines (more pointy and shooty towards the enemy at any given moment) and I understand why you'd deploy in shorter, more compact lines (better able to take losses and losing less of your stabby dudes at any given time), but why were the Spanish tercios deployed that...densely? Was it expected that the entire army would move like a giant cavalry square, did they want the ability to respond to flanking attacks, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
I've always wondered why ancient armies fought in such deep formations. When you've got twelve guys between you and the enemy, what are you doing? I know there's a theory that the Greek phalanxes physically pushed back each other, which always struck me as a really stupid theory. First, how did anybody stay on their feet? Second, if you're going to be pressed against your enemy, you'll pick a weapon a lot shorter than a spear. Third, other armies, like Romans and Germans and Persians, aren't said to have pushed like that, but still fought in deep formations. I wonder if it relates to another mystery, the length of battles. Fighting in heavy equipment you'll wear out in minutes, not the hours battles actually lasted. Did they rotate back to rest?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:and one part of that was that their formations were "based on mathematics." I read (in a GURPS sourcebook, so take with a grain of salt) that Spanish fencing was advertised by its masters as a "mathematically superior" style to the French and Italian methods. Tybalt from Romeo and Juliet was likely a student of this style ("he fights by the book of arithmetic"), meaning even Elizbethan Englishmen thought it was pretty respectable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Aren't those battles really more about morale? If you have 12 guys behind you, you would seriously be dissuaded from thinking of running away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I've always wondered why ancient armies fought in such deep formations. When you've got twelve guys between you and the enemy, what are you doing? The pushing match falls apart with any real analysis, and probably only happened a few times, and not intentionally. You don't arm all of your soldiers with 9 foot spears and train them to fight in a phalanx and then just go "run at those guys and push really hard, hope they did not bring daggers to cut your throat!" It is mentioned as happening, and people extrapolated that it was the norm and not a rare occurrence worthy of note. One of the reasons for deep ranks, is that in battle, routing is always one of the biggest threats. The front lines of a battle are really scary places and a place where a bunch of people are getting maimed and/or killed. Its not crazy to want to run away from that. However, the guys 12 rows back are not in much immediate danger, and will not run away. This can help keep wavering lines in front in check and prevent routs based on a momentary setback as opposed to a real disaster. Long battles would often literally have periods where both sides broke off and stood yards apart getting their breath and rotating out men. There are sources that talk about generals who brought water to battle and such and that implies rotating out soldiers. The Romans were experts at attempting to keep the men in the actual fight as fresh as possible, by rotating the individuals and regiments out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:If I can ask a follow-up to the pikes question, I understand why you'd deploy your units in long, thin lines (more pointy and shooty towards the enemy at any given moment) and I understand why you'd deploy in shorter, more compact lines (better able to take losses and losing less of your stabby dudes at any given time), but why were the Spanish tercios deployed that...densely? Was it expected that the entire army would move like a giant cavalry square, did they want the ability to respond to flanking attacks, or something else?  Anyway, the idea is that it's strong enough to deal with anything that happens to it, from whatever direction that happens, whether or not it's become separated from everyone else. Spanish-style escuadrons are very strong, as formations--consider the Battle of Rocroi, where a bunch of them repulsed eight French cavalry charges while they were getting bombarded by cannon for hours, and they were still with it enough at the end of the day to surrender on terms rather than just run. The Spanish called them "mobile fortresses," and compared the relationship between the pike and the "sleeves" of musketeers, which could be deployed in different patterns, to the central shape of the fortress and its bastions and cannon. Edit: Incidentally, I loving love everyone in Surrender of Breda, which is the top piece of art I showed on this page, that isn't one of the two main characters. Spinola and Frederick Henry are having their bittersweet little moment of chivalry from one honorable enemy to the other...and literally everyone else is all "Are they still talking? I think they're still talking. Guess we'll just...stand here. After they're done, you wanna go get drinks or something?" HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I've always wondered why ancient armies fought in such deep formations. When you've got twelve guys between you and the enemy, what are you doing? You wait for the guys in your front to get hit by enemy javelins, arrows, bolts, sling bullets, pikes etc. Suppose you had a formation so shallow that the rear rank was able of reaching the front of the formation with their spears - now any casualties this formation takes will immediately reduce the number of spearheads that can reach the enemy, thus decreasing the formation's fighting power. I would think a deep column-like or square formation is also easier to command and maneuver in the battlefield compared to a wider line formation. Compare with Napoleonic infantry column.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Hey, Hegel, this is not strictly military history, but can you recommend any introductory books to the political changes of the early modern era, i.e. the transition from a largely feudal social structure to something recognizably modern? I guess I might justify asking here since from what little I know the formation of standing armies went a long way towards establishing the foundations of early modern governments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Edit: Incidentally, I loving love everyone in Surrender of Breda, which is the top piece of art I showed on this page, that isn't one of the two main characters. Spinola and Frederick Henry are having their bittersweet little moment of chivalry from one honorable enemy to the other...and literally everyone else is all "Are they still talking? I think they're still talking. Guess we'll just...stand here." I like the two guys that are just looking at the guy
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I like the two guys that are just looking at the guy  ) who's looking at his fingernails. Edit: Oh my goodness, a friend has him around the shoulder and they're talking, I never noticed that before.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Happy Mannerheim's birthday, thread! We had a big party for his (and the armed forces') sake. There was pony riding!!!   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-E0tNy3_nc And hipsters on bicycles!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INBtoF9l0bo And old clunkers polluting the air!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smfAnVEku_k Then there was also metric tons of modern poo poo (boring) and a rather lame WW2 reenactment. All in all, I burned my lilywhite skin and had fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Happy Mannerheim's birthday, thread! We had a big party for his (and the armed forces') sake. Came for the reenactment, stayed for the Combat Mission videos  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEbuM0Rh4bU
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Tomn posted:Hey, Hegel, this is not strictly military history, but can you recommend any introductory books to the political changes of the early modern era, i.e. the transition from a largely feudal social structure to something recognizably modern? I guess I might justify asking here since from what little I know the formation of standing armies went a long way towards establishing the foundations of early modern governments. John Brewster's The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English state, 1688-1783 partially addresses what you're getting at, especially on the relationship between warfare and the establishment of modern bureaucracy. It's a bit late chronologically to be classically early modern, but it's in the general ballpark. Thomas Ertman's Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe is really on point when it comes specifically to the question of how early modern states developed from their medieval counterparts. The military is a little less a part of the discussion than in Brewster, but it's there and the two books taken in conjunction really work well together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 19:51
|
|