|
I'd like to make a left-field suggestion here. There's a book called Among the Thugs; it's about an only slightly mental American journalist who, living in England, decides in about 1983 that it'd be a boffo idea to follow a bunch of football hooligans as they troll around the country (and Europe), trying desperately to have fights with similarly-minded people before the police catch up to them and give everyone a good kicking. Why am I recommending it in this thread? It's the best thing I've ever read about what it's like to be in a giant barney, because it's directly concerned with not just a personal but an analytical account of participating in violence. The author doesn't just stand back and observe when it gets hairy; he gets stuck in with the rest of them. And he doesn't get away scot-free, either; a related attempt to attend a National Front disco ends with him getting his head introduced to a lamp-post several times, and the climax of the book is in Sardinia, where the police finally catch up to him properly to deliver the good kicking that he's been owed for years. It's a hell of an insight for anyone who's never been involved in anything bigger than a bar brawl. So it seems like it'd be directly relevant to anyone who's interested in the psychology of violence, what exactly goes on after the officers have declared "our chaps will fight their chaps over here", and now the chaps have to get on with it. Particularly if your particular era of interest is before the widespread adoption of modern military discipline, or that involves forces who don't respect same, or when hand-to-hand fighting was a major component of a battle. You're in an army unit, you've been marched to the battlefield, you've got something big and pointy, over there not very far away is the enemy. You're shouting at them, they're shouting at you; but what tips that situation past colourful language with handbags at twenty paces, and into an actual battle? This book may well have an answer for you. (Or, y'know, read another biography of a general, in which case I recommend Bill Slim's Defeat Into Victory, possibly the only thing written by someone at that level where I wasn't constantly thinking "well, you would say that now, wouldn't you?") Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 24, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
bewbies posted:I need a new book. Recommendations? Any period, any topic. War Before Civilization by Lawrence N. Keeley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I need a new book. Recommendations? Any period, any topic. History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides or Commentary on the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Commentary on the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar. This. I was impressed by how clear and concise it is, considering it was written so long ago. Also, the numbers that Caesar was able to muster were mind-boggling, unless something is lost in translation or he was exaggerating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Animal posted:This. I was impressed by how clear and concise it is, considering it was written so long ago. Also, the numbers that Caesar was able to muster were mind-boggling, unless something is lost in translation or he was exaggerating. In general everyone exaggerated the hell out of their numbers, except for the guys in charge of the payroll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Animal posted:This. I was impressed by how clear and concise it is, considering it was written so long ago. Also, the numbers that Caesar was able to muster were mind-boggling, unless something is lost in translation or he was exaggerating. It's a book written by Caesar, about Caesar's glorious conquest of Gaul. Granted, the Roman military machine was basically at the top of its game around that time and it wasn't like Caesar needed to make poo poo up in the W/L column, but yeah there be some inflation in the numbers. Why is that accepted as fact? Because it's Gaius Julius Caesar, the guy who trolled that morose neckbeard Cato so hard he later committed suicide by failing once and ripping open the wound to yank out his own guts. That's why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
There's some unintentionally funny stuff in it, too. Like, at one point he's talking about the fierce and annoying Germans crossing the Rhine and being a pest. Then a few pages later they are totally cool bros and are part of his cavalry. How did it get to that? I guess he bought them off or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
I found it a chore to read TBH, and I have a vague memory of it being full of run-on sentences. I was doing it for a Latin class though, so maybe a pre-translated version is more fun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Animal posted:There's some unintentionally funny stuff in it, too. Like, at one point he's talking about the fierce and annoying Germans crossing the Rhine and being a pest. Then a few pages later they are totally cool bros and are part of his cavalry. How did it get to that? I guess he bought them off or something. He may have offered them a similar deal to what was being offered to Roman soldiers at the time: land. Plus some perks of being part of the Roman Republic/Empire, I assume. That plus not getting annihilated is a pretty good deal. e: Alternatively, if there was a sharply divided tribalism going on, it may have been "We'll join you if it means we get to stay on our land but also the land of the assholes next door we've hated for like three generations." FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Maybe he offered to let them keep their pants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I found it a chore to read TBH, and I have a vague memory of it being full of run-on sentences. I was doing it for a Latin class though, so maybe a pre-translated version is more fun? Caesar's Latin is pretty highly accessible and his syntax is relatively simple. Pretty much all Latin is full of run-ons, though. Hell, look at English from 150+ years ago. Clauses all up in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Maybe he offered to let them keep their pants. Teutonic manly thighs chafe more easily than slender Roman ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Caesar's Latin is pretty highly accessible and his syntax is relatively simple. Pretty much all Latin is full of run-ons, though. Hell, look at English from 150+ years ago. Clauses all up in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Hole Wolf posted:In general everyone exaggerated the hell out of their numbers, except for the guys in charge of the payroll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:e: Alternatively, if there was a sharply divided tribalism going on, it may have been "We'll join you if it means we get to stay on our land but also the land of the assholes next door we've hated for like three generations." I've always assumed this was the go-to argument. "Hey, we're going to go gently caress up these dudes you hate and take all their poo poo. Want to come along?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 08:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
FAUXTON posted:Teutonic manly thighs chafe more easily than slender Roman ones. Manly thighs in women's clothing. God they dig my fetish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Also, i found it interesting/funny that in Caesars book about the Gallic wars is the earliest written description of a moose, at the time it existed in todays France and Germany. "There are also [animals], which are called moose. The shape of these, and the varied color of their skins, is much like roes, but in size they surpass them a little and are destitute of horns, and have legs without joints and ligatures; nor do they lie down for the purpose of rest, nor, if they have been thrown down by any accident, can they raise or lift themselves up. Trees serve as beds to them; they lean themselves against them, and thus reclining only slightly, they take their rest; when the huntsmen have discovered from the footsteps of these animals whither they are accustomed to betake themselves, they either undermine all the trees at the roots, or cut into them so far that the upper part of the trees may appear to be left standing. When they have leant upon them, according to their habit, they knock down by their weight the unsupported trees, and fall down themselves along with them." Did he fall for some gallic joke about moose? Because yeah, they do actually lie down and aren't like cartoon turtles when tipped over. For someone who has actually seen moose this is hilarious, picturing mooses sleeping against trees. Pliny the Elder seems to believe the myth too: "Hence, it never lies down, but reclines against a tree while it sleeps; it can only be taken by previously cutting into the tree, and thus laying a trap for it, as otherwise, it would escape through its swiftness." Falukorv fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Pliny the Elder is pretty much the ancient version of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
So what's the best book on the Battle of the Bulge? It seems all the best known ones, such as The Bitter Woods and Battle, and all decades old.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What exactly was in the superstructure of the Fuso class? Why were they so tall? Before radar, in order to accurately direct long-range ship-to-ship gunfire, you needed to observe the ship's shot. The primary purpose of the pagoda bridges on Japanese battleships was to place the director, which aimed the guns, as far above the waterline as possible. The higher the bridge, the further your observer can see before the curvature of the earth obscures your target. The pagodas, an emphasis on very powerful telescopes, the Yamato class battleships, and the Tone-class cruisers, which sacrificed guns for more observation seaplanes, were all part of a comprehensive plan to give the Japanese the ability to engage the American battle line from extreme ranges and inflict crippling damage before the American ships could shoot back. Unfortunately, radar and airplanes made this a dead end doctrine-wise. There's a book called Kaigun that is all about Japanese prewar doctrine that you can read if you'd like to learn more, or read about Japan's other wunderwaffe like the midget submarines and torpedo cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:Unfortunately, radar and airplanes made this a dead end doctrine-wise. Especially when a small squadren of destroyers and some planes can send the Japanese navy (including the Yamato and Musashi) back to base
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Especially when a small squadren of destroyers and some planes can send the Japanese navy (including the Yamato and Musashi) back to base The Musashi was already sunk, so it was a totally even fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
What good military equipment did the Japanese have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What good military equipment did the Japanese have? Well, I suppose the A6M Zero would count if we are talking early war. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What good military equipment did the Japanese have? The Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedo was a compressed oxygen torpedo with astronomical speed and range coupled with a powerful warhead, and was widely considered the most advanced torpedo of the time period. With an effective range of over 20km and a maximum range of around 40km, there were recorded instances of a stray Long Lance hitting an American ship long after it missed its initial target, to the point that commanders thought they had hit naval mines instead. Its unique propulsion system did have the nasty side effect of being far more vulnerable to shock than electric or wet-heater designs, and its heavy warhead could sink the destroyer it was mounted on if it had the misfortune of detonating prematurely. EDIT: It was actually this tendency toward premature detonation that allowed an escort carrier of all things (the USS White Plains) to cripple the IJN heavy cruiser Chokai during the Battle off Samar; a 5in shell hit her torpedo rack and the resultant explosion completely mauled her rudder and engines. EDIT2: Hole Wolf posted:the Yamato-class were probably the best battleships in the world This has been debated to hell and back over the decades, but I think the consensus has been that while the Yamatos were undoubtedly powerful, their extreme deficiencies in anti-aircraft and radar capabilities ultimately would've left them flatfooted even in the straight-up naval engagements they were built for. The 18in guns they packed would probably not have been enough to make up for the significant advantage in accuracy and range from the Iowas' 16in guns. 3 fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What good military equipment did the Japanese have? The Type-93 torpedo outclassed American torpedoes in all ways except user safety, the Yamato-class were probably the best battleships in the world, the Zero was really nice in 1941. The Ki-84 was one of the best fighters of the war. I don't know anything about ground stuff. ^ For comparison, this is the torpedo the US was using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Controversy. I didn't know that about the Yamatos but yeah the course of developments was not kind to them. Hole Wolf fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
3 posted:EDIT: It was actually this tendency toward premature detonation that allowed an escort carrier of all things (the USS White Plains) to cripple the IJN heavy cruiser Chokai during the Battle off Samar; a 5in shell hit her torpedo rack and the resultant explosion completely mauled her rudder and engines. And Mikuma got absolutely wrecked by the bombs that hit her, while Mogami didn't die to more bomb hits because her damage control officer had gotten rid of them. Nice weapon, but amusingly enough, the doctrine called for them to be used in "long range concealed firing", and when long range attacks were tried at night during the war, hit rates were closer to 1% than the 10% needed. They were scary when using their speed from closer in to make themselves really hard to dodge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Ultimately, when it comes down to it, the key American advantage in the Pacific war was superior implementation of technology. Yamato was an unquestionably fearsome ship, but all of that was focused on firepower and armor. The Iowas may be less glamorous in comparison, but at the end of the day, superior fire-control vastly outweighed superior firepower; with radar systems, a ship could engage at much larger effective distances as well as during nighttime (see the scrap between the Washington and the Kirishima during Guadalcanal). Even though the Yamato's 18in guns technically outranged the Iowa's 16in, the Iowa's radar control would've enabled her to maintain an accurate firing solution over the horizon, while maneuvering, in the dark. This capability is also partly why the Iowas took so dang long to be decommissioned for good, their over-the-horizon capabilities allowed them to be somewhat competent offshore artillery batteries. Likewise, the severe lack of effective AA on the Yamato is what ultimately led to her being sunk as fast as she was, and is honestly kind of an inexcusable gaffe on the part of IJN designers considering their role in showing the world just how brutally effective airplanes were at pacifying seapower.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What good military equipment did the Japanese have? They had the worlds best navy in the first half of 1942. Their carrier fleet was better than anyone else in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
3 posted:Ultimately, when it comes down to it, the key American advantage in the Pacific war was superior implementation of technology. The same principle applies to many areas - Soviets had some great numerical advantages early in the war but weak implementation. T-34 for instance was a formidable piece of kit, but lack of radios and a two man turret made tactical usage hard. Russian artillery had a large number of tubes but their use was little improved from WW1 standards: they were good for planned breakthroughs with elaborate fireplans to take out pre-scouted hardened positions, but reaction times were otherwise slow and use inflexible. Meanwhile in Finland the army didn't have as many tubes as the big boys so the chief of artillery, former tsarist officer Vilho Nenonen worked his rear end off on improving methods, organization and tactics. These improvements included automatizing calculations and using graphical tables to improve response times and accuracy, making the arty battalion the basic fire element instead of battery to increase effectiveness, rationalizing comm lines so that need be a single forward observer can put multiple battalions worth of fire on its target etc. In 1939-40 this had little effect as there weren't enough shells to really utilize artillery,though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:They were scary when using their speed from closer in to make themselves really hard to dodge. Or, you know, when the USN relied on radar contacts, gormlessly (Ghorm-less-ley?) sailing in line ahead while getting riddled with Long Lances. Less "scary" and more "embarrassingly devastating."   Bonus tropical carpentry bow: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Hole Wolf posted:The Type-93 torpedo outclassed American torpedoes in all ways except user safety, the Yamato-class were probably the best battleships in the world, the Zero was really nice in 1941. The Ki-84 was one of the best fighters of the war. I don't know anything about ground stuff. Taken within the context of 1930s bolt action rifles the Type 99 was actually really good. The action was stronger than gently caress (to the point where they were very popular for building post-war hunting rifles out of in fairly obscene magnum chamberings) and even in its relatively complex pre-war form it was simplified down very thoughtfully without losing anything in the way of safety, maintainability, or ease of use. It also had a major advantage in being one of the very few firearms that (usually) had a chrome lined bore and bolt face, something that was very important given both the primer compounds used during the 40s and the tropical environments that they ended up operating in. Rusted out barrels were a real problem even in Europe during this time, and were a loving nightmare in the Pacific. The pre- and early-war rifles were a bit cluttered with kinda useless knick-knacks (monopod, AA sights, dustcover, etc.) but wartime revisions to the design got rid of those and produced an all around excellent bolt action rifle. Of course the US was fielding a semi-auto rifle by that time, but that's not as huge a hinderance as you'd think given the infantry doctrines of the day and their emphasis on LMGs. The Type 14 Pistol was also really good. Accurate, pointed well, reliable. Really not much more you can ask for in a service firearm. If it had any major drawbacks it was that it wasn't as simple to manufacture as some more modern designs, hence their developing the Type 94. Japanese infantry were also really well known for their effective use of mortars, especially early in the war. I don't know if they had a specifically excellent mortar design, but it's something you see commented on pretty frequently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
In 2014, would anyone give two wet farts if an army equipped itself with hollow point or soft-point bullets? The convention banning those is 115 years old and doesn't say poo poo about most other elements of modern war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:In 2014, would anyone give two wet farts if an army equipped itself with hollow point or soft-point bullets? The convention banning those is 115 years old and doesn't say poo poo about most other elements of modern war. Depends. If the Ukrainian Army did it you could be sure the Russians would raise hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
^ ArchangeI posted:Depends. If the Ukrainian Army did it you could be sure the Russians would raise hell. If the US did, you can bet the rest of the world would raise hell. ArchangeI posted:The Musashi was already sunk, so it was a totally even fight. "The Japanese Center Force now consisted of the battleships Yamato, Nagato, Kongō, and Haruna; heavy cruisers Chōkai, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, Chikuma, Tone; light cruisers Yahagi, and Noshiro; and 11 Kagerō- and Yūgumo-class destroyers. The battleships and cruisers were fully armored against 5 in (130 mm) projectiles. They together had dozens of large caliber guns, including the Yamato's 18.1 in (460 mm) guns, which could reach out to 25 mi (22 nmi; 40 km). Surface gunnery was controlled by optical sighting which fed computer-assisted fire control systems, though they were less sophisticated than the radar-controlled systems on U.S. destroyers." "Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague's Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3") consisted of Carrier Division 25 Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie's COMCARDIV 26 Kitkun Bay and Gambier Bay. Screening for Taffy 3 were the destroyers Hoel, Heermann and Johnston, and destroyer escorts Dennis, John C. Butler, Raymond, and Samuel B. Roberts. The ordnance for the escort carriers' aircraft consisted mostly of high-explosive bombs used in ground support missions, and depth charges used in antisubmarine warfare, rather than the armor-piercing bombs and torpedoes which would have been more effective against heavily armored warships." Totally even. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:^ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
The Yamato and Musashi were actually pretty poorly designed. The intention of the armoring scheme was to create a sort of citadel area in the hull that would maintain buoyancy even if the hull was shot full of holes. Then when they actually designed and built the ships, the citadel area was too small to actually keep the ship afloat like it was meant to. The Iowas were pretty much superior in every way except for the size of their main guns, and the cancelled Montanas would have been unquestionably superior to the Yamatos in every aspect (twelve 16" > nine 18.1" because they throw a heavier broadside overall) except top speed, where they were equals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
We're finally getting the World Wars documentary in History Channel here now, and there you have it, Stanley McChrystal talking about Dugout Doug and George Patton leading America to victory riding on the back of a tank
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
More WWII naval chat, but Japanese damage control was seriously bad. The Shinano or the Yamato could have been the best and most powerful ships ever built (they weren't) but it still would have gone down like a chump due to how the IJN trained their crews. My understanding is that unlike American ships, where everyone had at least rudimentary understanding of how to preform damage control and regularly engaged in DC drills, all damage control on a Japanese ship was done by a single specially trained group. If they all died because of a lucky shell strike or torpedo blast, then the ship has no way to preform damage control and you can imagine how well that would end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Don Gato posted:More WWII naval chat, but Japanese damage control was seriously bad. The Shinano or the Yamato could have been the best and most powerful ships ever built (they weren't) but it still would have gone down like a chump due to how the IJN trained their crews. My understanding is that unlike American ships, where everyone had at least rudimentary understanding of how to preform damage control and regularly engaged in DC drills, all damage control on a Japanese ship was done by a single specially trained group. If they all died because of a lucky shell strike or torpedo blast, then the ship has no way to preform damage control and you can imagine how well that would end. Shattered Sword expounds on this disparity a lot. Basically, the IJN ships ended up with DC teams cremated in the hangar deck or engine room with the rest of the ship on fire because maybe 100 people knew how to fight fires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 06:53
|
|