Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

Noosphere: Aug 31, 2008; [[[error]]] Damn not found.

JaucheCharly posted:

Sch�tzenvereine are something for the common man. There's still lots of them on the countryside. If they have a brass band, they will also have a Sch�tzenverein. That doesn't mean though that they shoot high powered rifles there. Most of the time it's air pistols/rifles, crossbows or 22s.

Do keep in mind as well that these Sch�tzenvereine have been around for a very long time. One of the clubs in my home town was founded in 1590. Sports shooting is drat close to a traditional sport in some parts of Europe.

# ? Aug 24, 2014 17:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 00:20

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

JaucheCharly posted:

Sch�tzenvereine are something for the common man. There's still lots of them on the countryside. If they have a brass band, they will also have a Sch�tzenverein. That doesn't mean though that they shoot high powered rifles there. Most of the time it's air pistols/rifles, crossbows or 22s.

Today? Sure. That's a product of modern German gun laws (which in turn are a direct result of the post-WW2 military occupation). Prior to 1945 they shot full sized rifles all the time. There was an entire family of competition guns called Wehrmannsgewehre that were specifically designed to mimic the WW1 issue G98 in most ways, only be more accurate and generally have much nicer competition sights installed on them.

This wasn't just a nazi-era thing either having to do with rearmament and the general paramilitarization of society, full size rifle competition goes back pretty much as far as private firearms ownership in German-speaking countries.

There are also Swiss and Austrian analogues, although they're a touch different in the particulars and I haven't looked into what their history was like in the 18th and 19th centuries.

# ? Aug 24, 2014 18:53

Bacarruda: Mar 30, 2011; Mutiny!?! More like "reinterpreted orders"

e: nvm

Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Aug 25, 2014

# ? Aug 25, 2014 01:55

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Bacarruda posted:

Actually, the opposite was largely true. In 1940 56.5% of the United States was urban.
...
Let's look at what the Germans actually had to say about Allied troops in combat. All this is based on the US Army's interrogations of German POWs captured in Italy.

You realize you answered a comment about WWI with reference to US demographics in 1940 and WWII interviews, right?

# ? Aug 25, 2014 02:14

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Alchenar posted:

The Entente on the hand end up leveraging their massive production capacity in shells and tanks and stuff to throw absolutely overwhelming force on small segments of the line and then 'bite and hold' bit by bit until they force a withdrawal to a more tenable position.

I wanted to add some additional detail to this! 'Bite-and-hold' as practiced by the Entente was a reaction to a change in German defensive doctrine. After Ludendorff managed to oust Falkenhayn and take command of the Western Front, he instituted a new defensive plan where instead of concentrating the majority of men on the first, most-outward set of trenches and then counter-attacking with reserves, he instead drew up a three-layer defense where the first line was thinly held with machine gun bunkers and strongpoints, and then you don't get the extensive trenches and manpower allocations until the second and third defensive belts.

The idea behind this was so that you could man the line with less men overall, something that Germany needed, and to cut down on losses from artillery bombardment because now most of your men either are too far away to be hit or cannot be spotted easily.

The British 'countered' the new strategy by attacking the first line, then immediately taking over the strongpoints and digging in furiously. The Germans expected that any Entente offensive would try to push for a penetration/breakthrough that would play into the second and third defensive lines, but if instead the Entente stopped after taking a little bit of ground and immediately fortifying it, then the German follow-up with a counter-attack would fail because then they'd be facing a dug-in enemy instead of an advancing one.

The Germans eventually had to abandon this new strategy and go back to the old "strongly held first line" bit, after sacrificing a non-trivial amount of territory and effort to set it all up.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 02:29

Bacarruda: Mar 30, 2011; Mutiny!?! More like "reinterpreted orders"

ulmont posted:

You realize you answered a comment about WWI with reference to US demographics in 1940 and WWII interviews, right?

Ah, you're right. Consider me the idiot.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 02:46

Chillyrabbit: Oct 24, 2012; The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet; Ultra Carp

Bacarruda posted:

Ah, you're right. Consider me the idiot.

I liked the well thought out sourced explanation though for WW2 keep it!

# ? Aug 25, 2014 02:51

Bacarruda: Mar 30, 2011; Mutiny!?! More like "reinterpreted orders"

Chillyrabbit posted:

I liked the well thought out sourced explanation though for WW2 keep it!

Sure!

Bacarruda on another forum posted:

At least initially, Germans regarded British and American soldiers (especially Americans) as somewhat amateurish. German certainly saw shortcomings in the Allies� use of infantry. One German veteran of Monte Cassino criticized the Allies� poor use of camouflage, saying: "they [Allied infantry] are very negligent about seeking concealment, and therefore can be seen most of the time.� He also pointed out flaws in Allied uniforms, noting that: "the net cover on the helmets of Allied soldiers permits us to see the outline of the helmet distinctly, and at a considerable distance, in the daytime.� The soldier felt German camouflage discipline, with some notable exceptions, was usually better.

The same soldier also noted that Allied infantrymen could be overly cautious and tended to �bunch up too much when they move against their objectives.� American soldiers earned special criticism, and he asserted that American soldiers shot wildly at suspected German positions, avoided close combat, and tended to avoid aggressive action. Furthermore, he claimed that Allied soldiers (it�s unclear if he�s referring to British, Americans, or both) moved in predictable patterns that made them vulnerable to sniper fire.

He accused Allied officers of similar weaknesses, claiming that "many Allied commanders lack aggressiveness. They do not realize when an objective can be taken; consequently, attacking troops often turn back just before they reach their objective.�

Yet Allied soldiers could also command a great deal of respect. One German soldier captured in a British nighttime raid praised the skill and courage with which the British attack had been executed. It appears that British units, unlike American ones tended to be better at night fighting and did a great deal more of it. Another German soldier noted that they were �using the night for much of their activity, and have achieved a great deal of success,� and that Allied (probably British) machine gunners �use their machine-gun fire very effectively at night� to pin down German troops.

Some Allied units earned fearsome reputations. German infantryman Werner Mork recounted that Ghurkas �were feared for their daggers [khukri knives] that they would use in hand to hand combat. It always led to death.� Contradictory (but nonetheless chilling) rumors amongst German soldiers that Ghurkas �never took prisoners� or that they cut the ears off of their prisoners only added to the Ghurka legend. Similar stories emerged about the Moroccan Goumiers who fought for the Free French in Italy.

German soldiers saw poor Allied infantry-armor coordination as another weakness. Attacks that should have succeeded failed because the two arms cooperated badly. The Panzergrenadier captured at Cassino told his interrogators that a �great distance between Allied armored units and infantry was apparent almost every time. There was one instance when Allied tanks smashed across our foxholes, to be followed an hour later by infantrymen, who were driven back by hail of machine-gun fire. We Germans rely on you to make these mistakes.� In other cases, American troops bunched up too closely with the armor, limiting their ability to effectively support the tanks. A German battalion commander observed that American tanks would immediately retreat if one of their number was hit by anti-tank fire, rather than pressing home the attack.

Although as time progressed, these coordination problems appeared to have been resolved somewhat. By 1945, at least one German observer noted that many American infantry attacks had some form of close tank support.

Werner Mork, �Aus Meiner Sicht (From My View),� trans. Daniel H. Setzer, 2006, http://www.dhm.de/lemo/forum/kollektives_gedaechtnis/400/index.html
"What Jerry Thinks of Us... and Himself" from Intelligence Bulletin, Dec. 1944 http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/thinks/
"A German's Reaction to a British Night Attack" from Intelligence Bulletin, June 1944 http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/intelligence-report/british-night-attack.html
"A Battalion Commander Looks Us Over" from Intelligence Bulletin, January 1945 http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/battalion-commander/index.html

Bacarruda on another forum posted:

It's also worth discussing German reactions towards Allied firepower. German soldiers were consistently impressed with American and British artillery and airpower.

German soldiers noticed that, �as a rule, an attack is preceded by a strong artillery preparation in which the Americans employ all calibers, including their heaviest.� In a letter home, a German veteran of the Sicily campaign wrote that that these barrages could be utterly terrifying. He recalled that even his sergeant, a veteran of the Eastern front, �swore he had never experienced anything like it, even in Russia.� This comment is especially telling, given the Russian penchant for preceding their attacks with massed artillery and rocket fire. Even when uninjured, German soldiers found that Allied barrages badly frayed their nerves. Some German soldiers came to term Allied artillery Feuerzaube (an allusion to Wagner's "fire magic"). In some cases, artillery fire alone was enough to force German soldiers to retreat from their positions. Germans also observed that Allied artillery badly interfered with German supply efforts. When Allied observers could see German supply lines, they could call in devastatingly effective artillery fire that forced the Germans to stealthy bring up small quantities of supplies at night.

Allied command of the air made Allied artillery even more dangerous. Germans observed that Allied spotter planes were a common (and unwelcome) presence overhead. Allied air superiority meant Allied planes could roam the skies at will (one German veteran said he only saw 2 German planes during the entire Sicily campaign). This was particular true during the Normandy campaign. German troops attempting to counter the Allied invasion found it virtually impossible to move during daylight without coming under air attack. Numerous images from the campaign show German soldiers anxious watching the skies, ready to bail out the moment Allied fighter-bombers appeared overhead.

"German Soldier Describes Terror of Sicily Retreat" from Intelligence Bulletin, Nov. 1943 https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/sicilyretreat/index.html

# ? Aug 25, 2014 03:58

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

HEY GAL posted:

Although, there are stories from the 30YW about rural people using fowling pieces to very good effect, not only because they had practice in shooting them but because those weapons were usually better than muskets.

From C.H. Firth's Cromwell's Army, fourth edition, 87

The situation where all peasants are the enemies of all soldiers is, of course, normal. You might have friendly cities, but there is no such thing as a friendly territory. Unless it's like your personal fief or something, a territory is what you move through and gain resources from, not really "hold." Everyone there hates you and will torture you to death if you go anywhere in small enough groups. The danger from civilians plus the lack of any real "front line" means that everything is transported in armed convoys, which is interesting to think about.

If Seven Samurai is a documentary (and I'm p. sure it is) than this complete enmity transcends cultures.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 04:13

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Trin Tragula posted:

100 Years Ago:

It's easy to sit in judgement over French's apparent loss of nerve after 100 years of hindsight; but at the time, all he's receiving are reports of Germans further than the eye can see (when reports can reach him), his ally's carefully-laid plans to take the offensive are in tatters, he can't properly resupply his men because they're going backwards too fast, and if his flank is turned that's certainly the end of his force and very possibly the end of the war. He's also had to take the (entirely correct) decision to evacuate GHQ from Le Cateau after a single day of fighting and is retreating along with everyone else. He's also doing something he's never been prepared to do, in commanding a concentrated continental body of men; the entire Army was designed to police an empire, operating at battalion and company level, conducting small, widely-flung operations.

This is a great post, thanks. I didn't realize how close the Germans had come to breaking the lines and winning the war in the early months; my idea of the war narrative was "Cult of the Offensive tells Germans to attack, Western Front attacks inevitably get bogged down in trench warfare."

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:22

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

AATREK CURES KIDS posted:

This is a great post, thanks.

His/her effortposts are all great, and I just want to say I enjoy them.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

If Seven Samurai is a documentary (and I'm p. sure it is) than this complete enmity transcends cultures.

If it's not, I've wasted my career.

Edit: But how creepy is that scene? They have you surrounded, and one by one you leave the forest and never come back.

Edit 2: Peter Hagendorf got caught outside the walls of the city he was staying in once, alone and drunk. But the civilians just beat him up (I think they took his shoes as well, but I don't remember) and when he made it back in, a cavalryman laughed at him which, honestly, he deserved. It's a really noob rule to never go anywhere alone.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Aug 25, 2014

# ? Aug 25, 2014 10:47

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

Aw, thanks. Have another one! A lot of the "but why the gently caress would they do X????" completely baffling questions I used to have about this stupid war suddenly became a lot more explicable once I found out some things about what exactly happened in 1914, and the ideas that they lodged in people's heads.

100 Years Ago:

As the retreat continues, II Corps proves to be particularly hard-pressed, with the weight of the enemy opposite them. They've lost contact with the Fifth Army (cue 100 years of arguing about General Lanrezac) and are barely keeping in touch with I Corps (who have suddenly and unexpectedly found their own battle to fight at Landrecies). A number of desperate rearguard actions have been fought, often by impromptu groups of stragglers and randoms thrown together by on-the-spot subalterns acting on their own intiative. Smith-Dorrien's subordinates are unanimous. Their men physically cannot continue to retire as fast as their pursuers are pushing them. They must have some rest; and since that means the Germans will be upon them, why not take the opportunity to fight a more controlled battle than the earlier rearguard actions, and buy some time for the rest of the army to rest and then continue moving?

French insists that the army continue retiring. Smith-Dorrien disobeys the order and, in the evening, II Corps arrives at Le Cateau and begins digging in as best they can (which isn't much; most of the men are too tired to do anything than collapse and sleep). It soon becomes obvious that there will not be nearly enough time for the guns to take cover, and they will have to operate in classical fashion, firing at targets they can see over open sights.

So here's another reason to think again about John French: it would have been very easy for him to instruct a few days ago that the BEF should retire from Framieres to the Gallic fortress town of Maubeuge and use its extensive prepared defences to make a stand on the River Sambre; the defences were strong enough and extensive enough that both they and the French garrison might possibly hold out long enough for Joffre to send help. He recognised that occupying a static position would give the Germans an opportunity to encircle them (the German intent during this period was always to outflank the BEF, rather than chase them down the road), and also that a chance for the BEF to reorganise and resupply was a chance for the enemy to do exactly the same thing, and so ordered the retirement to continue to Bavai and then Le Cateau. (IIRC he later claimed that he recalled what had happened at Metz in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian War.) Even stopping to make this stand could spell trouble; if I Corps gets its flank turned in the meantime, or if the Germans can punch a gap between the two Corps, that could well be curtains for the BEF.

The French garrison was surrounded at about the time II Corps were on the road to Le Cateau, besieged without hope of relief as the French army disappeared over the horizon, and was forced to surrender a fortnight or so later, after extensive bombardment from guns taken from the Belgian fortresses at Liege and Namur.

gradenko_2000 posted:

The British 'countered' the new strategy by attacking the first line, then immediately taking over the strongpoints and digging in furiously. The Germans expected that any Entente offensive would try to push for a penetration/breakthrough that would play into the second and third defensive lines, but if instead the Entente stopped after taking a little bit of ground and immediately fortifying it, then the German follow-up with a counter-attack would fail because then they'd be facing a dug-in enemy instead of an advancing one.

Of course, it took quite a while for bite-and-hold to go anywhere; IIRC (the details of generals' squabbles with each other aren't my strong point) General Plumer was a huge fan of it, and was its primary advocate, but he could only do so much because he was never more than a corps and army commander, and both the Chiefs didn't like bite-and-hold because it was a far less offensive strategy than the big push, which could theoretically "force a decision" (for some reason, lots of people and Haig in particular loved using this phrase to mean "end the war") very soon thereafter.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 12:00

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

Regarding Hegel's Cromwell post, what the heck is a firelock? Does that mean a matchlock?

# ? Aug 25, 2014 21:24

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Regarding Hegel's Cromwell post, what the heck is a firelock? Does that mean a matchlock?

I've heard the term firelock used to describe matchlocks, wheellocks, and flintlocks. It's a broad term that I guess could be used to separate those types from hand cannon or later firearms.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 21:32

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

MrYenko posted:

I've heard the term firelock used to describe matchlocks, wheellocks, and flintlocks. It's a broad term that I guess could be used to separate those types from hand cannon or later firearms.

Non-matchlock firearms. In this case, probably some sort of snaphance.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 21:39

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

HEY GAL posted:

Non-matchlock firearms. In this case, probably some sort of snaphance.

All right fancyhose, what's a snaphance then?

# ? Aug 25, 2014 22:38

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

FAUXTON posted:

All right fancyhose, what's a snaphance then?

It's got a lock with a flint in it, but it's not a flintlock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaphance

# ? Aug 25, 2014 22:44

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

HEY GAL posted:

It's got a lock with a flint in it, but it's not a flintlock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaphance

That is indeed some serious poo poo. It's a proto-flintlock!

# ? Aug 25, 2014 22:59

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

Every now and then a few of those show up on IMA, but those guys price poo poo on age, so they're normally expensive piles of poo poo

# ? Aug 26, 2014 03:58

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

100 Years Ago

In Africa, a British-French force completes a successful invasion of the German colony of Togoland, which is later partitioned.

So, things I learned from 1914: This holds true for all wars, but due to the unique circumstances of this one (vastly increased weapons range, but radio not yet being a mature enough technology to be of much use), it's particularly relevant and will crop up time and time again. During a war, lots of people make lots of decisions, many of them at a very senior level, based on imperfect information, and over the course of a war, both sides end up making a truly humungous level of gently caress-ups. The side that wins tends to be the side that fucks up the least, and makes the best use of the information it does have.

II Corps, supported by a French cavalry corps somewhere on its left, is making its stand at Le Cateau. Both their flanks are dangling in air; both the 5th Army and I Corps are disinclined to be of any help and continue retiring. Unlike Mons, the battle proves to be an artillery duel, the British guns turning all around and about to interdict the Germans as they try to outflank the Corps in both directions, while taking merciless counter-battery fire.

Somehow, with tireless support from the French, they hold out, and then get out. Somehow, the Germans fail to realise how precarious the Corps' position is, and quite how easy it would be to outflank them. The order to break off and continue retiring comes at 2pm, and a vital day of rest has been bought for everyone who's not gone into action. It takes the order an hour or more to reach a lot of units; and for more, they never receive it at all. Some of those eventually retire on their own intiative, having to fight their way back through Germans who have advanced past them, but plenty more hold their positions and are either captured or destroyed.

The Corps is intact, but only just. Some companies of 250 officers and men have been reduced to 50 or fewer, and are frequently in the charge of subalterns or NCOs. Off they plod towards St Quentin, sure that the Germans will be after them again soon enough.

But they're not, and somehow, improbably, over the next few days the BEF is able to slip away entirely. Exactly why this occurred is a Matter of Some Debate, but from what I can make out, it goes something like this. German intelligence was poor, and it vastly overestimated the strength of the force opposing them. This is where people usually start to mention the probably-apocryphal stories that the BEF's rifle fire was so intense that German officers reported being opposed by vast armies bristling with machine guns; probably an exaggeration, but the basic truth that the Germans overestimated the strength of the Allied left flank is just that. They also blundered in predicting that the BEF would think of saving itself above all else, and retreat to defend the Channel ports, its lines of supply, and its quickest route home. Instead, they were retreating with the French, back towards Paris, to defend it if need be. Alternate lines of supply ran to Le Havre and St Nazaire.

And so, the Germans angled further westwards, looking to find and turn a flank that wasn't really there any more, while the BEF continued south and escaped. Rearguard actions continued (particularly involving I Corps on the far left, who were still out of contact with II Corps and, being further north than them, didn't have as much breathing room as they did), but the gap widened over the next few days, as Joffre continued retreating his left flank (the 4th and 3rd armies have now been compelled to retreat alongside the 5th) in search of a good place to turn and fight, and the BEF was left with no option but to continue heading further and further back into France.

The Germans may have got there firstest with the mostest; however, since leaving Mons the BEF has hosed up the littlest and the leastest, and the immediate danger has passed. But the Allies haven't won anything, they've just succeeded in not losing, yet. Germans are still advancing deeper and deeper into France, relatively unchecked, and still broadly in agreement with the Schlieffen plan.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 11:24

Rabhadh: Aug 26, 2007

Yo hegel, where do we do pike talk? Here or the medieval thread? I have some info on the use of the pike in Ireland in the 1580's to the 1600's that that one other guy might find interesting

# ? Aug 26, 2014 14:14

Animal: Apr 8, 2003

Here please!!!

*goes back to lurking*

# ? Aug 26, 2014 14:23

Rodrigo Diaz: Apr 16, 2007; Knights who are at the wars eat their bread in sorrow;
their ease is weariness and sweat;
they have one good day after many bad

Rabhadh posted:

Yo hegel, where do we do pike talk? Here or the medieval thread? I have some info on the use of the pike in Ireland in the 1580's to the 1600's that that one other guy might find interesting

It doesn't matter. Hell, crosspost if you want.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 14:28

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

So, here's a question for you guys: How did logistics during the Crusades work? Actually scrounging up enough supplies to keep thousands of men fed on a long ocean journey and then keeping up a pipeline the whole way through sounds like it's way out of the reach of the administrations of the time. Did they just contract transport and supplies from Italian merchants? Rely largely on local plunder and the appropriation of fiefs in the Holy Land? Were soldiers and lords expected to handle their own supplies, or did the kings in charge try to organize poo poo to keep everyone fed? And whatever arrangements they tried to make, how well did those arrangements actually work?

# ? Aug 26, 2014 14:41

Rhymenoserous: May 23, 2008

Tomn posted:

So, here's a question for you guys: How did logistics during the Crusades work? Actually scrounging up enough supplies to keep thousands of men fed on a long ocean journey and then keeping up a pipeline the whole way through sounds like it's way out of the reach of the administrations of the time. Did they just contract transport and supplies from Italian merchants? Rely largely on local plunder and the appropriation of fiefs in the Holy Land? Were soldiers and lords expected to handle their own supplies, or did the kings in charge try to organize poo poo to keep everyone fed? And whatever arrangements they tried to make, how well did those arrangements actually work?

Foraging which is a kind way of saying "Robbery". Crusade logistics really would have been an "individual lord" thing.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 15:17

brakeless: Apr 11, 2011

Great war chat: A nice writeup of Austria-Hungary's first foray into Serbia.

Shocker: It goes poorly.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 18:37

CoolCab: Apr 17, 2005; glem

brakeless posted:

Great war chat: A nice writeup of Austria-Hungary's first foray into Serbia.

Shocker: It goes poorly.

quote:

Vienna might have been spared Putnik�s plan as the sixty-seven year old general was on�Habsburg soil when the war broke out, taking the cure at a Bohemian spa. Putnik�was briefly interned, but was soon released as a soldierly gesture by Emperor Franz Joseph, a stickler of the old school who thought it dishonorable to detain Putnik under such circumstances, thus allowing him to return home to defeat the Habsburg Army.

Real solid work Franz, couldn't have done it without you.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 18:51

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

this is fantastic

# ? Aug 26, 2014 19:14

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

brakeless posted:

Great war chat: A nice writeup of Austria-Hungary's first foray into Serbia.

Shocker: It goes poorly.

quote:

rumors were rife of knife-wielding women hacking apart Habsburg wounded

Habsburg propaganda was full of stuff like this. Instead of encouraging soldiers to fight to the end, in resulted in mass atrocities over Serbian civilians, both in Serbia and AH, and broke morale of AH troops whenever they'd end up in a disadvantaged position. Here's a part of an interesting article about the war in Serbia, written by a Swiss in 1915: (link)

quote:

With this object the Austro-Hungarian Press, faithfully supported by the German Press, commenced a systematic campaign of slander against the Serbians. Anyone who read the Austro-Hungarian papers would think that there was no people more barbarous or more execrable than the Serbians. Savages, thieves, regicides al ready, these detested Serbians were now committing massacres. They were cutting off the noses and ears of their prisoners, putting out their eyes ; and mutilating them. Even serious papers repeated such statements as these.
But to prepare the public by means of the Press did not suffice to fill the soldiery with terror of Serbian barbarism. Accordingly the officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned, lost no opportuny of drilling into their soldiers the atrocities which it was alleged the Serbians committed on their prisoners. All the Austro-Hungarians taken by the Serbians have assured me that their officers told them that they must not allow themselves to be captured, as the Serbians would murder them. Even the officers believed this fairy-tale. For example, a First Lieutenant admitted to me that at the moment when he was taken, he had pulled out his revolver to shoot himself through fear of being tortured by the Serbians. The instinct of self-preservation got the upper hand, and he added : " I am now very glad that I did not do it

# ? Aug 26, 2014 19:21

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Trin Tragula posted:

100 Years Ago

I absolutely love this post. Keep 'em coming as appropriate!

# ? Aug 26, 2014 19:26

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

brakeless posted:

Great war chat: A nice writeup of Austria-Hungary's first foray into Serbia.

Shocker: It goes poorly.

Related: https://archive.org/stream/howaustriahungar00reis#page/n1/mode/2up

Pamphlet by a Swiss observer about the atrocities committed by the Austrians in 1914. :nms:

For some images of the wounds caused by explosive bullets and dead bodies.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 19:48

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

uPen posted:

Related: https://archive.org/stream/howaustriahungar00reis#page/n1/mode/2up

Pamphlet by a Swiss observer about the atrocities committed by the Austrians in 1914. For some images of the wounds caused by explosive bullets and dead bodies.

quote:

I mention in an interesting detail that when the officers returned in the evening they undressed and put on Madame Petrovitch's dresses. Pillagers and perverts!

# ? Aug 26, 2014 20:04

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

I didn't say it was an unbiased pamphlet.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 20:06

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

bewbies posted:

this is fantastic

That is a really spot on summary. Plus the cartoons are cute, despite the horror of it all.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 20:11

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

uPen posted:

Related: https://archive.org/stream/howaustriahungar00reis#page/n1/mode/2up

Pamphlet by a Swiss observer about the atrocities committed by the Austrians in 1914. For some images of the wounds caused by explosive bullets and dead bodies.

Lovely document. Published by French academics in 1915 so it's far from being impartial, but that just adds to its historicity. And just the cover offers us tidbits like this:

Durkheim was one of, if not the father of sociology whose landmark study was Suicide.

quote:

The outbreak of World War I was to have a tragic effect on Durkheim's life. His leftism was always patriotic rather than internationalist�he sought a secular, rational form of French life. But the coming of the war and the inevitable nationalist propaganda that followed made it difficult to sustain this already nuanced position. While Durkheim actively worked to support his country in the war, his reluctance to give in to simplistic nationalist fervor (combined with his Jewish background) made him a natural target of the now-ascendant French Right. Even more seriously, the generations of students that Durkheim had trained were now being drafted to serve in the army, and many of them perished in the trenches. Finally, Durkheim's own son, Andr�, died on the war front in December 1915 � a loss from which Durkheim never recovered. Emotionally devastated, Durkheim collapsed of a stroke in Paris in 1917. He was buried at the Montparnasse Cemetery in Paris.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 20:32

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Tomn posted:

So, here's a question for you guys: How did logistics during the Crusades work? Actually scrounging up enough supplies to keep thousands of men fed on a long ocean journey and then keeping up a pipeline the whole way through sounds like it's way out of the reach of the administrations of the time. Did they just contract transport and supplies from Italian merchants? Rely largely on local plunder and the appropriation of fiefs in the Holy Land? Were soldiers and lords expected to handle their own supplies, or did the kings in charge try to organize poo poo to keep everyone fed? And whatever arrangements they tried to make, how well did those arrangements actually work?

I know they occasionally contracted out with Venice and I think the other Italian merchant republics, who would dedicate their trading fleets to transporting dudes to wherever it was they needed to go. This also seems to include the provisions they would require while on the ships. Once they got to wherever they were going, I'm sure they just 'foraged'.

Trin Tragula posted:

100 Years Ago

Seriously, keep doing this.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 22:12

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I can't help but wonder just how much of the peasantry's food surpluses could be readily concentrated into the stockpiles of the nobility.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 03:32

Arquinsiel: Jun 1, 2006; "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

God Bless Margaret Thatcher
God Bless England
RIP My Iron Lady

SeanBeansShako posted:

That is a really spot on summary. Plus the cartoons are cute, despite the horror of it all.

I love that the tank at 3:13 is a Land Raider.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 04:34

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

100 Years Ago:

This is where we start to come up against the limits of what I feel I know enough to talk about. The main action today would be on the Eastern front, where a prolonged period of heavy skirmishing in Prussia finally coalesces into the Battle of Tannenberg; over the next six days, the German 8th Army gives the Russians, and particularly their 2nd Army, one of the more comprehensive kickings ever dealt out. German casualties are a shade under 14,000 (five digits); the Russians suffer 170,000 (six digits) killed, wounded and captured, and are also relieved of some 350 guns. And all this despite a Russian paper advantage of 80,000 men at the start of the affair. Anyone know a bit more about it? About all I know is that it was a huge kicking, and that none of the fighting happened anywhere near Tannenberg, the name being chosen for propaganda reasons.

Another major Eastern battle had begun on the same day as Mons between the Russians and Austro-Hungarians; it's one of those things so large that it can be divided into several distinct phases and goes by several different names. I've seen "Lemberg" and "Galicia" used at different times by different people. And finally in poo poo I Know Little About, a combined British/Japanese force begins laying siege to the German-controlled port of Tsingtao in China.

Back in France, the BEF fights a vigorous rearguard action at Etreux, in which two guns and three rifle companies of the 2nd Royal Munster Fusiliers keep the entire German 1st and 2nd Armies going absolutely nowhere for some fourteen hours, outnumbered six to one at the sharp end, while I Corps makes good its escape behind them. It's a much smaller affair than Le Cateau, but arguably just as important for the retreat in general. Of an initial strength of 800, 240 men and four officers survive longer than their ammunition does. They have no option but to surrender with dignity, and many later accounts report the Germans congratulating them on their fighting spirit. Perhaps, once the retreat is finally over, this war will soon provide ample opportunity for daring and glory on the offensive?

# ? Aug 27, 2014 10:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 00:20

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

Arquinsiel posted:

I love that the tank at 3:13 is a Land Raider.

"You drat well know what those arrows mean!"

Haha. Oh :smith:

# ? Aug 27, 2014 11:08

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »