|
Smoking Crow posted:Not get encircled or die. From reading Ivan's War (just finished it  ) apparently becoming a partisan was also acceptable. Though, that might be just considered a variation on fighting to the death (which was obviously ok) and just not managing to die while fighting. Discarding your identity papers or anything of that nature was a big no-no, though, because then they'd just say you were a deserter or bandit or collaborator whenever the Red Army came back in town.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Oh, Mekhlis. Yes, let's put a QA guy in charge of army morale, why not. Worked for McNamara, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:That, or have been recruited as spies or saboteurs by the Germans. Do we have any data as to how many captured soldiers were recruited by the Germans? I'd think the number is low because the Germans were loving brutal to everyone. Pornographic Memory posted:From reading Ivan's War (just finished it Acceptable until the end of the war, after which the party will get mighty curious about how you seem so good at fighting totalitarian regimes with little to no support. Then you get to go to a magical land in Siberia with your NKVD friends as they ascertain your loyalty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Partisans were heavily supported by the soviets, with plenty of coordination with STAVKA, and assisted by direct airdrops of personnel and equipment. Generally partisans were incorporated into the soviet army as the soviets retook those territories, and you were really only in trouble as a partisan if you were with the 'wrong group'. (e.g. Polish or Ukrainian nationalist partisans.) Yuri Andropov was a partisan.quote:Do we have any data as to how many captured soldiers were recruited by the Germans? I'd think the number is low because the Germans were loving brutal to everyone. You were much more likely to be killed as a Soviet POW than get recruited, but it did nevertheless happen. Hiwis, and the Russian Liberation Army was a thing, and was used in German propaganda against the Soviets. I think the numbers are something like 200k-1 million Hiwis, mostly working in rear area roles. If we were to answer the question of what the Soviets expected encircled troops to do, the answer seems to be 'share in the fate of their respective unit, one way or another'. That said, if the author of that memoir did hand himself in to the specials, the likely result would be that he would be assigned to a penal unit, which would be only almost a death sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Al Stewart wrote an excellent song in 1973 called "Roads to Moscow", about a Soviet soldier whose unit gets encircled in '41, who escapes, fights the rest of the war, then gets taken to a gulag at the end for being briefly taken prisoner. It's fiction but not an inaccurate portrayal of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Do we have any data as to how many captured soldiers were recruited by the Germans? I'd think the number is low because the Germans were loving brutal to everyone. The SiPo combed the POW "camps" for all kinds of people for (special) treatment and offered other enthnicities than russians, jews and asians (I recall reading of some exceptions) a way out of starvation and anything else that you can imagine. I don't think the numbers were especially low, considering how convincing the circumstances were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Al Stewart wrote an excellent song in 1973 called "Roads to Moscow", about a Soviet soldier whose unit gets encircled in '41, who escapes, fights the rest of the war, then gets taken to a gulag at the end for being briefly taken prisoner. It's fiction but not an inaccurate portrayal of things. There's no "a gulag". The GULAG was the main directorate of camps. IIRC, the post-POW filtration camps were not a part of the GULAG system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
The ones that got filtered out seemed to end up in GULAG run camps though, which are easily just refered to as "a gulag" with the understood "facility" left out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:There's no "a gulag". The GULAG was the main directorate of camps. IIRC, the post-POW filtration camps were not a part of the GULAG system. There were about 2.6 million repatriate POWs sent to the USSR after the WWII. Of that number, 2.16M were released, 150k were admitted to the army, 260k were forced into labour battalion (formally not gulags, but it was a form of punishment regardless), 50k were sent into gulags proper. The confusion of "most POWs went to gulags" comes from the fact that POWs went through processing camps, and typically spent limited time in there before being cleared - and as I mentioned, over 2 million were released without indictment (or in minority of cases died in transfer, which was due to German treatment) steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There were about 2.6 million repatriate POWs sent to the USSR after the WWII. Of that number, 2.16M were released, 150k were admitted to the army, 260k were forced into labour battalion (formally not gulags, but it was a form of punishment regardless), 50k were sent into gulags proper. How did they decide who to let go and who to punish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
If the 50k to the GULAGs is correct, the ROA and Hiwis would make up nearly all of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:How did they decide who to let go and who to punish? Captured documents. If the NKVD finds "we dragged in this guy after he killed 30 of our dudes with a small stick" somewhere in those papers, you're golden, if you're in lists of collaborators or those who surrendered willingly, you're probably not going to do so well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
So you guys are the most historically knowledgeable people I know of on these forums. I've been listening to some Dan Carlin podcasts to pass the time at work, and enjoy them so far. Does he have any weird biases or inaccuracies that I should take into account?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
So The Atlantic had a nice photo feature on historical reenactors recently. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/07/reenacting-the-past/100770/ It's just about everything you know to expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:So you guys are the most historically knowledgeable people I know of on these forums. I've been listening to some Dan Carlin podcasts to pass the time at work, and enjoy them so far. Does he have any weird biases or inaccuracies that I should take into account? He likes to compare things to boxing or baseball when he could probably come up with better analogies. Other than that he's a lot of fun to listen too, shame he's decided to go with 3-4 hour podcasts every 4 months instead of shorter episodes more often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I've noticed the overuse of boxing analogies in the WWI series I've been listening to so far, but that doesn't bother me a ton since I kind of like boxing. Cool, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be shocked by like, him hating Jews or something crazy in future sessions 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:So The Atlantic had a nice photo feature on historical reenactors recently. I fully expect that Hegel is somewhere on these pictures, and I have to say that these eastern european medieval reeactment battles often look pretty intense. Btw, a guy in these picture here is holding a Chauuchat:  Isn't that one of the worst guns ever designed? What other examples come to mind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
He's pretty good at giving overviews of the conflicts he covers. I would say that if you find a particular episode of his interesting, you can go back to his show notes and check out the books he used as sources. I started with his Fall of the Roman Republic in January last year and that pretty much lit off a classical history stretch for me that began with Tom Holland's Rubicon and ended with Shadow of the Sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Chauchat was AFAIR pretty drat good at its role for the time. A light machine gun was really useful on the offence, as all the armies learned fairly quickly during WWI, but there really wasn't a definite idea on how exactly it should work. Chauchat was one of the more successful designs, even if it had its flaws. Of course, then the Americans came, saw it, decided they want it, rechambered it for their own munitions and generally started loving with the design, and because they could never be arsed to learn the metric system the entire thing went completely tits up and thus the dark legend of Chauchat was born. Or so I recall hearing it told.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Btw, a guy in these picture here is holding a Chauuchat: It was an innovative design and had plenty of flaws, especially when the Americans rechambered it in .30-06. It had an unusual operation that made it especially prone to jamming when it overheated, a loose bipod that made it difficult to keep on target, and poorly designed magazines that also caused a large number of jams. It was also designed with close tolerances that made it break down a lot in the muddy environment of the trenches, a flaw that also plagued the Ross Rifle in WWI and the M16 in Vietnam. Overall it managed to be a useful and widely used weapon, but troops had to be trained to work around its limitations compared to the larger guns with better cooling systems. The Ross Rifle is a Canadian example of one of the worst guns ever. It was designed with a straight-pull action normally used in crew-served weapons, which meant that the bolt would jerk backwards when a soldier fired the gun. This meant that when the firing chamber exploded, as it frequently did because of the poorly tempered steel used in its manufacture, the rifleman would get shot in the face with his own bolt. The Ross would jam if any dirt got into the firing mechanism, the chamber, or onto the cartridges used. It performed brilliantly in sterile testing in Canada but it was a disaster on the field. The earliest variant of the M16, the XM16E1, was notorious for jamming in the jungles of Vietnam. There were so many reports of soldiers needing to strip down their rifles in order to unjam them in a firefight that it resulted in a congressional investigation. The investigation found that the rifle had been deployed without adequate anti-corrosion features, a serious problem when fighting a war in a rainforest. Also, the gunpowder formula had been changed just before entering mass-production, causing the rifle to fire faster and frequently fail to eject spent cartridges. Finally, many XM16E1s were issued without the corresponding cleaning kit, leaving soldiers unable to maintain the weapon. I've seen a manual from the war that advised soldiers to keep the rifle in a large clear plastic bag and even showed how to fire it from inside the bag. The later variants of the M16 solved the reliability problems, but it took years for the M16 family to improve its reputation among American soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:The Ross Rifle is a Canadian example of one of the worst guns ever. It was designed with a straight-pull action normally used in crew-served weapons, which meant that the bolt would jerk backwards when a soldier fired the gun. This meant that when the firing chamber exploded, as it frequently did because of the poorly tempered steel used in its manufacture, the rifleman would get shot in the face with his own bolt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSui_UqDX8
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
re: all the Chauchat chat. http://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-worst-gun-ever/ http://www.forgottenweapons.com/chauchat-followup/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
I spoke without precision. The lyrics to the song are even better than I represented them, because they describe the protagonist as being in a "transit camp" at the end. Al Stewart supposedly did some real research on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:The Ross Rifle is a Canadian example of one of the worst guns ever. It was designed with a straight-pull action normally used in crew-served weapons, which meant that the bolt would jerk backwards when a soldier fired the gun. This meant that when the firing chamber exploded, as it frequently did because of the poorly tempered steel used in its manufacture, the rifleman would get shot in the face with his own bolt. The Ross would jam if any dirt got into the firing mechanism, the chamber, or onto the cartridges used. It performed brilliantly in sterile testing in Canada but it was a disaster on the field. Interestingly, while your typical soldier despised the Ross Rifle for all the reasons mentioned above, sharpshooters loved it because if you could manage to take care of it properly, ensure it was always kept clean, and used it in certain precise ways, it was one of the most accurate rifles available--which, incidentally, is why the Canadian military adopted it in the first place. Sterile testing in Canada showed them a rifle that was incredibly accurate without revealing its flaws, so they adopted it. For your typical Canadian soldier in a muddy trench, it was all-but useless, but for trained sharpshooters it could actually be better than alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Ross chat: Watch that linked video, seriously. I've never heard the poor metallurgy allegation, are you sure you aren't mis-remembering similar problems faced by early m1903 rifles in US service?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:So The Atlantic had a nice photo feature on historical reenactors recently. *checks to see if I or anyone I know am in it* I know, what a bunch of nerds. JaucheCharly posted:I fully expect that Hegel is somewhere on these pictures, and I have to say that these eastern european medieval reeactment battles often look pretty intense. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zGjex6qDtM
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:So The Atlantic had a nice photo feature on historical reenactors recently. Photo 18 there is quite hilarious. "We're gonna charge, leave that loving bike, man!" "I CAN'T WHAT IF SOMEONE STEALS IT?!?!?!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Photo 18 there is quite hilarious. Too much time spent playing Renegade, man. You can never know where the Black Hand lurks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:So The Atlantic had a nice photo feature on historical reenactors recently. You can instantly tell which picture was taken in America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Yea right, just lean your bike over there, we'll.....keep an eye on it. Where's that?  ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
To expound on the Chauchatchat (great video BTW on the Ross), was there an army in WWI that had a distinct advantage because of their weapons? The only one I'm familiar with would be the Allies having tanks and the Germans having few and not as good ones (acknowledging that tanks in general was not as huge a war-winner as the general collapse of German logistics and reserves)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You can instantly tell which picture was taken in America. How so? First off there was more than one. A bunch of those would have been plenty believable if labeled as in the US, and there wasn't anything super distinctive about any of the US stuff other than the ACW theme - and lets face it you need to be a bit of a war nerd to tell ACW from Napoleonic at a glance. I'm guessing you're referring to the air show, but Europeans do air shows too. The pyrotechnics were a nice touch, but the French have been known to have some pretty huge walls of flame at theirs as well im going to hell for that joke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:40
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A bunch of those would have been plenty believable if labeled as in the US, and there wasn't anything super distinctive about any of the US stuff other than the ACW theme - and lets face it you need to be a bit of a war nerd to tell ACW from Napoleonic at a glance. If the soldier looks like he is wearing a whole band parade group uniform at once, way too tight pants and with headgear bigger than his head, it is a NW soldier. Either that or some confused stoned dude in your local Adam And The Ants cover band in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Sorry for the multi, on a tablet that makes multiple quotes a pain.gradenko_2000 posted:To expound on the Chauchatchat (great video BTW on the Ross), was there an army in WWI that had a distinct advantage because of their weapons? The only one I'm familiar with would be the Allies having tanks and the Germans having few and not as good ones (acknowledging that tanks in general was not as huge a war-winner as the general collapse of German logistics and reserves) Short answer, not really. Here and there maybe some localized advantages that shifted a close battle just enough, but nothing truly decisive. There were a few early battles where superior recon was a big help for example. It's that way in most wars to be honest, much to the chagrin of people who like to obsess over military technologies. Short of something truly game changing that fundamentally shifts how war is fought or how the battlefield is conceived of its usually enough to have equipment that's within a generation or so of what your opponent has. Past that it's usually drowned out by other factors, although having good gear certainly doesn't hurt either. Take ww2 as an example. The US was the only country to field a semi auto rifle as a standard issue weapon intended for the entire military. By 1944 we had almost entirely phased out bolt actions except for in specialist or rear area roles. Other countries fielded semi auto designs too of course, but not as general issue. Even so whatever advantage that conferred wasn't decisive in the way that, for example, uncontested air superiority or breaking enemy code encryption were. True technological overmatch in wars is damned rare. What few examples I can think of are generally either naval in nature - probably due to the relatively low number of fielded units magnifying tech related advantages - or in really unique situations like the Spanish conquest of the Americas. In the latter case it's honestly probably more about lack of horses than it is the flashy stuff like steel and gunpowder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Fat reenactors. Only fatties I saw in that album were Russians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:
Pretty much every Japanese infantry weapon? But especially this one:  Type 11 LMG. Note the feed mechanism: instead of a box magazine or a belt, it's got a hopper on the side of the receiver, with the idea being you can use the same clips used by the Type 38 rifles the other guys have. Makes reloading a breeze, just stack 6 of those clips in the hopper and you're good to go. And you never have to stop firing to change a mag, some other guy can just keep dropping fresh clips in the hopper while you're blazing away. Except if you're advancing, then it makes reloading a pain in the rear end. And even better, all sorts of dirt and crud and muck and pieces of blown-up guy find their way into that hopper. Oh, and it turns out that the 6.5x50 round used in the Type 38 tended to break the gun, so they needed to design a new dimensionally-identical round with a reduced powder charge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:
I thought it was possible to disassemble and reassemble the rifle and make it fire with the bolt backwards that meant the bolt can fly back and knock you in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Reenactment chat: in a couple of days there will be annual Grunwald battle reenactment. I'd love to go (as a spectator) but I cannot this year. http://www.grunwald1410.pl/index.php?cat=7
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 14:40
|
|
