|
Groda posted:
This was also the period when everyone was flat convinced that if soldiers ate fresh grapes, they would die. Entire countries based strategic considerations on this: since the soldiers themselves would, of course, eat grapes if they came across vineyards, there was one point in the year when you would allow your enemies to take the field if there were vineyards in the area, so they would die. I don't know if this is based on anything real or if it's some sort of Early Modern version of fan death.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:This was also the period when everyone was flat convinced that if soldiers ate fresh grapes, they would die. Entire countries based strategic considerations on this: since the soldiers themselves would, of course, eat grapes if they came across vineyards, there was one point in the year when you would allow your enemies to take the field if there were vineyards in the area, so they would die. I don't know if this is based on anything real or if it's some sort of Early Modern version of fan death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Reposting this from the WWI thread just in case anyone is interested:PittTheElder posted:CBC Radio is currently doing a series called The Bugle and The Passing Bell, which is apparently a re-cut of an older documentary from 1964, called Flanders Fields. Obviously it's got a pretty Canadian bent to everything, but the primary element of the show is [original recordings of] oral interviews with (Canadian) veterans of the war, which doesn't seem to be all that common a thing. An amusing quote from the first episode as I'm listening to it: quote:<a big description of pay grades>
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
.
|
Oh whoah it was 100 years ago today wasn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:A pure guess, maybe it's to protect wine production so the armies don't rebel and murder each other when they have no wine after eating all the grapes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Oh whoah it was 100 years ago today wasn't it. Yup. In 7 days time German troops will be crossing the Belgian border and everything irrevocably goes to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Reposting this from the WWI thread just in case anyone is interested: The contrast between this and the 30YW is pretty amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The contrast between this and the 30YW is pretty amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think a lot of belligerents were like that if they had limited resources. Why replace the ox if you need the engine/metal for a plane or tank? Besides, halftracks ain't gonna gently caress and make baby halftracks. You, uh, you know what distinguishes an ox, yeah? FAUXTON posted:Everything I've seen in this thread is that Patton was a dangerous insane person barely kept in check by the command structure, without which he'd have just dumped soldiers and materiel into meatgrinder fights until the other guys ran out of ammo. Yeah, this thread, like the rest of the internet, is prone to hyperbole. Calling Patton "dangerously insane" and incompetent is a disservice to people like Lloyd Fredendall. Similar deal with Halsey and Ghormley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:No, the wording used was clearly that they would get sick if they ate grapes. Are there any sources on how many grapes a soldier (or human, really) could reasonably eat without dying horribly? Because I would guess that it had to do with soldiers preferring fresh food to biscuits and eventually overeating grapes and developing dysentery, which is always happy funtimes for the entire army.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Naah, they have no idea that people pay the army either.  I'm only 90% sure this is a joke, but if it is, it is hilarious. e: Update from Bugle and the Passing Bell, in the run-up to Second Ypres: quote:Soldier: McCogg(?) and I were together one day and we received a message from brigade, which had come down from higher authority, saying 'the Germans are expected to attack with gas, take the necessary precautions.' And we looked at each other and said 'what are the necessary precautions?' and we hadn't the faintest idea, we'd never heard of gas before. We called brigade and we said we'd received this message, [and asked] 'what are the necessary precautions?', they said 'we don't know any more than you do. If we find out anything we'll let you know.' 
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What good military equipment did the Japanese have? In general, Japan had good equipment with a few key deficiencies. 1) God awful squad level infantry support weapons, especially automatic weapons. 2) Lack of radar, especially shipboard radar. 3) Terrible tanks, although this was not a very big deal since they were either fighting the Chinese, who had no tanks, or dug in as strongpoints. Especially at the beginning of the war, Japanese hardware was about as good or better than most other combatants. Some stuff kept pace pretty well with Allied developments in terms of pure quality, like fighter aircraft. But the difference in the war wasn't about superior hardware, it was about superior production. The Allies could have won if they never built anything more advanced than what they had in service at the end of 1941 and would have won the war* (with significantly higher casualties, of course). *with the exception of the B-29
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
It's a joke. Everyone wants to get payed and, in an ideal world, they would be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Everything I've seen in this thread is that Patton was a dangerous insane person barely kept in check by the command structure, without which he'd have just dumped soldiers and materiel into meatgrinder fights until the other guys ran out of ammo. My own view of Patton (including Beevor's Normandy, but also others) is that he was the only Allied general that matched the aggressiveness of German and Soviet generals such as Guderian, Manstein, Zhukov or Rokossovsky, but that he also unfortunately brought those aspects into his personal life (i.e. slapping the GI in Siciliy) and the hell-for-leather approach didn't go over so well serving within a democracy PittTheElder posted:This, and also that the Germans actually outnumbered Soviet forces during the initial invasion. Video games have done a pretty terrible thing for the West's understanding of how that whole thing went down I think. My first exposure to Barbarossa was through Panzer General, so for the longest time I had the impression that the first 2 months or so of the Eastern Front was a massive slog with the Germans being stymied by the Russians at every turn until they finally march into Smolensk in the nick of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:It's a joke. Everyone wants to get payed and, in an ideal world, they would be. What's the longest that an army has campaigned for without actually getting paid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
I think a lot of the thread's dislike of Patton is a reaction to the jingoistic way he is now lauded. Personally I suspect that had he lived, he would have ended up regarded about as well as Montegomery. I think both were perfectly adequate generals, with their own foibles. I do think both were some way below, say, the best Soviet generals, though, because it is easy to look good while you hold all the advantages and are mostly attacking. I don't think either had to endure the truly lovely, lovely situations the likes of Zhukov and Rokossovsky had to go through. Put Patton in command of a Soviet front in June 1941 and he would have died. Boy would he have died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What's the longest that an army has campaigned for without actually getting paid? See, the thing is that this question is a little misleading since a lot of the time a nice battle or a really good defeat of a city will come along, and you can just kind of coast on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I do think both were some way below, say, the best Soviet generals, though, because it is easy to look good while you hold all the advantages and are mostly attacking. I don't think either had to endure the truly lovely, lovely situations the likes of Zhukov and Rokossovsky had to go through. Reading about the Eastern Front, you do a get a sense of just how much the Soviets had to learn and how much they tangibly improved their planning, staff work, tactics, doctrine, etc over the next 4 years, and I do think it's worth considering that American commanders didn't quite have as long to sharpen their skills (the Pacific seems better at this). For Monty though I have no excuse, dude was fighting since May 1940
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:What's the longest that an army has campaigned for without actually getting paid? 29 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Well that's not an army though, that's one guy on an island somewhere. Entirely different psychology to the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I don't know for sure, but off the top of my head, I'd say von Frundsberg's guys in Italy. He organized his last army in late 26/27 and on 13 March 27, when they hadn't gotten payed and hadn't fought a battle either (both would have helped, since the laws of war entitle you to the property of the beaten dead), they just said gently caress it, downed pikes, and refused to go any further. Sorry, that's what I meant, an army that was raised, promised unimaginable wealth (for a certain definition of unimaginable) and then the wealth fails to materialize.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well that's not an army though, that's one guy on an island somewhere. Entirely different psychology to the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think a lot of belligerents were like that if they had limited resources. Why replace the ox if you need the engine/metal for a plane or tank? Besides, halftracks ain't gonna gently caress and make baby halftracks. The picture I've gotten is that Japan was especially bad off for potential recruits with a basic level of technological familiarity. Other countries at least had good railroads and so on. So training up recruits would be especially expensive, and doing it with conscripts would really sting because they didn't serve for long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I feel so sorry for those people. God, how sad and weird that must feel. Would being alone for that length of time literally drive you crazy? I heard that prisoners in solitary confinement experience brain damage due to the loss of socialization, but the circumstances aren't quite the same (closet vs tropical island).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Sorry, that's what I meant, an army that was raised, promised unimaginable wealth (for a certain definition of unimaginable) and then the wealth fails to materialize. You are probably looking at the Roman era for that. The Senate was forever trying to get out of paying for the decade long campaigns the Republic kept getting into. And it got far worse in the less stable Imperial periods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Reading about the Eastern Front, you do a get a sense of just how much the Soviets had to learn and how much they tangibly improved their planning, staff work, tactics, doctrine, etc over the next 4 years, and I do think it's worth considering that American commanders didn't quite have as long to sharpen their skills (the Pacific seems better at this). The Red Army in 1941 was worse off than you might think because there were essentially zero experienced officers left in the field, and only a handful at command level. There were colonels in charge of divisions (that's normally a major general's post) with majors as chiefs of staff. And that's not counting some of the more competent men who were shot after the war broke out pour encourager les autres. Specifically the commander of the 4th Army, Korobkov, was shot along with the Front commander despite having managed to keep his own command together enough to conduct a fighting retreat instead of being surrounded and cut to pieces like the armies on his flanks. Now back to Montgomery Chat: One of the biggest "what ifs" of the war for me is how Richard O'Connor would've fared against Rommel had he not been captured in the opening stages of the first Afrika Korps offensive. Montgomery was dropped into Egypt at just the right time to win decisively at Second El Alamein, but I have to think that Auchinleck might've managed the same thing, since he was in charge when the German advance was actually stopped/ran out of supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I feel so sorry for those people. God, how sad and weird that must feel. Would being alone for that length of time literally drive you crazy? It must. Although I imagine you have to be a little bit crazy to begin with to try and carry on the fight for more than a decade. It must have been heartbreaking for Onoda to learn that he had friends that had died literally for nothing, and perhaps killed for nothing as well. Although now I'm curious, how much fighting could these guys really have been doing anyway? They can't have had much in the way of materiel, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spend most of their time just patrolling abandoned patches of mountains, and only coming down when they needed supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well that's not an army though, that's one guy on an island somewhere. Entirely different psychology to the situation. Shows what an ignoramus you are!  Well anyway, it's multiple lone guys on multiple islands... who all just happen to think the empire is still kicking and all evidence to the contrary is enemy propaganda. Human mind works in mysterious ways. But I admit, it's wrong to compare 17th century mercenaries powered by geld (and corporal punishment) to 20th century conscripts powered by nationalism (and corporal punishment).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It must. Although I imagine you have to be a little bit crazy to begin with to try and carry on the fight for more than a decade. It must have been heartbreaking for Onoda to learn that he had friends that had died literally for nothing, and perhaps killed for nothing as well. Onoda actually wrote a book about his experiences. And yeah, it ends with him literally asking what it had all been for. As you say, it's heartbreaking. Definitely worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Well anyway, it's multiple lone guys on multiple islands... who all just happen to think the empire is still kicking and all evidence to the contrary is enemy propaganda. Human mind works in mysterious ways. And I've seen these guys' Gerichtbuecher, there's less corporal punishment than you might think. You'll get branded or forced to stand six hours of watch while wearing six suits of armor (I imagine they must have tied the extra breastplates to those guys) if you do something against the Articles of War and you'll get killed if you murder someone and nobody finds any extenuating circumstances, but there's no flogging or anything, I think. Why would there be? When these guys get unhappy, they walk off (they're not supposed to, but they will).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
From a thought that randomly popped into my head, how good were these guys at latrine discipline, or camp hygiene in general?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:From a thought that randomly popped into my head, how good were these guys at latrine discipline, or camp hygiene in general? Guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
That's about what I was expecting. Were the peasantry any better at such things? If everybody is making GBS threads everywhere anyway I guess it might not matter what your particular group of dudes is doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's about what I was expecting. Were the peasantry any better at such things? If everybody is making GBS threads everywhere anyway I guess it might not matter what your particular group of dudes is doing. There is a small difference between 100 people throwing their poo poo into a river and 10000 people throwing their poo poo into that river.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Regarding the inaction of the Allies to advance into Germany at the end of 1944 you really need to understand how the Normandy campaign went down. NO ONE on the allied side expected the Germans to completely fold and rout after breaking out of the Cotentin Peninsula. The Allied high command expected to have to fight against multiple defensive lines throughout France as the Germans fell back to natural obstacles. Luckily for the Allies, Hitler was steadfastly refusing to give ground by 1944 and foolishly rushed the entire German army into an indefensible position in an attempt to counterattack against the Allied armies, completely blowing everything up as the Falaise Pocket was formed and shut. What this meant was that the Allies advanced across all of France literally months before they expected, outrunning their logistical means. Since the original plan had been a gradual advance across France the Allies were confident that the logistical situation would keep up. But now, suddenly 400 miles from both the beaches and the one deep water port they had working, it was a giant logistical cluster gently caress. The Allies literally could not advance any further without engaging in extremely risky shoestring operations like Market Garden or battering their heads against the wall in the Hurtgen forest. They literally did not plan to begin any real large action until the spring of the following year. Obviously The Battle of the Bulge changed the situation drastically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:From a thought that randomly popped into my head, how good were these guys at latrine discipline, or camp hygiene in general? How good were the Romans at it? They were pretty great about throwing up forts for defenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:How good were the Romans at it? They were pretty great about throwing up forts for defenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Probably gonna write up a big effort post about the British naval mobilization in July 1914 in a couple of days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So good I think I remember hearing that they'd get on your case for not washing your hands after you took a poo poo. Could be wrong though. Roman Legions were legendary for being able to turn an empty piece of land into a fortress in a day. Caius Marius' troops were best known for it, they would carry so much and work so hard they were called "Marius' Mules". But he'd be down in the ditches helping them as well, sleeping on the dirt, eating the same food they ate. A soldier's soldier. Too bad he turned into a despot later. It's hard to imagine someone hating you so much that they dig up your bones and throw them into the river so nobody can ever pay their respects at your grave. Then again, Sulla was known for holding grudges. MA-Horus fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Probably gonna write up a big effort post about the British naval mobilization in July 1914 in a couple of days. Oooh yes please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:16
|
|