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 »

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Trenches on the battlefield have a much longer history than is commonly assumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_defense

Oh defensive trenches have been a thing ever since someone noticed that a) it's nice to fight on top of hills, and b) with a few spades and an army and a bit of time you can make your own mini-hill pretty quickly.

Trenches that you fight in appear when gunpowder becomes a thing, and they become a thing you fight battles from rather than just sieges and siege-like situations in in 1914.

e: I say siege-like situations because the final months of the ACW are a bit special and probably belong in a category all of their own, much like the ironclad battleships of the late 1800's belonged neither to the Napoleonic era nor to the Dreadnought era.

Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 25, 2014

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 00:08

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

JaucheCharly posted:

Has anyone here been in the military? We had one day where we had to put on gasmask and light protection and do poo poo and sports in a room full of irritant gas. I have never before and after experienced claustrophobia until that day.

I know exactly what you mean. My gas mask had some kind of problem and didn't work. I had informed my company sergeant major about it, but I hadn't yet had time to go change it. We were standing in a formation, and had a gas alarm exercise, except this time a staff sergeant opened some gas canisters. I had managed to put my mask on in time, but it didn't help much. Luckily I ran uphill. When I looked down I could see some other unfortunate people running around in the gas cloud.

In the next exercise we would have went in a container that was then filled with gas, but I couldn't participate because of the mask.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:58

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

Communist Zombie posted:

What country is that? Because wow...

Canada is in a similar state, due to lack of foreign investiture and budget cuts.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 22:34

Nine of Eight: Apr 28, 2011; LICK IT OFF, AND PUT IT BACK IN; Dinosaur Gum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars#Strategy_and_tactics

The Maori made pretty drat effective use of Trenches to bloody the British in the mid to late 1800s.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 23:31

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

100 Years Ago

In northern France, once again both sides wind up and throw giant swinging haymakers at each other at exactly the same time. The latest flanking manoeuvre is centred around the town of Albert; the Germans hoping to advance to the line of the River [Name redacted to avoid paying the musicians again], the French hoping to push east to capture the critical rail junction at Bapaume. This is accompanied by a general French offensive in the area north of the Aisne. And, in the south, the Germans occupying the St Mihiel salient stiffen themselves to meet the French counter-attack. Their line holds, for now.

Meanwhile, more and more of the BEF is arriving in rest billets for a day or two, for reinforcement and resupply before moving off to the north (even this operation is being carefully camouflaged, with the BEF's onward movements arranged so as to appear part of normal French railway operations). Someone gets an interesting visit.

quote:

Sgt Sanderson, 2nd King's Royal Rifles

Sir J. French came in when we were cooking, without any instruction, and started talking to us, and saying how pleased he was with us all, and that he was proud, and that England was proud too. He went round all the billets in the same manner. So once more we were pleased and everyone came to the conclusion that Sir John French is a trump. Everybody simply adores him. He said we were only there for a short rest, as he couldn't spare seasoned troops, which is quite natural.

While we've got a relatively quiet day, some quick notes that will be useful going forward.

First: a salient and a re-entrant are different terms for the same thing - it's a matter of perspective. A salient is what happens when your line projects outwards towards the enemy. A re-entrant is what your salient creates in the enemy's line. Let's have a look at this example from the Battle of MSPaint:

Salients form very regularly during most offensives; there will very often be places where the line holds and places where the line gives way.

Second, a note on place-names in Belgium, which will become very important shortly. As any fule kno, Belgium has one major division (and of course they hate each other); Flanders (to the north) and Wallonia (to the south). The Walloons speak French (sort of), and the Flemish speak Dutch (mostly). The story of the Belgian language wars is long and boring; the practical upshot is that in 1914, many Belgian place names were rendered by English sources in their French forms, even if they were in Flanders. Not all of them were; but the larger or more important a place was, the more likely it was to be referred to by a French name. This is why you'll see in any English-language treatment of the war place-names such as Dixmude, Roulers and Ypres (all taking French forms), but also Zillebeke, Hooge and Ploegsteert, their names being as French as a faithful marriage.

This can make following the course of events on a modern map difficult, because Dutch names have asserted themselves in the meantime, and only Ypres still takes its French name on an English map (for obvious reasons). Dixmude is now Diksmuide, Roulers is now Roeselare. "Menin" tends to refer exclusively to the Menin Gate in Ypres; the settlement at the end of that infamous road is now Menen. Even better, some Flemish names now have different spellings. Gheluvelt is now Geluveld, and hopefully it's still obvious where Passendale is.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:15

xthetenth: Dec 30, 2012; Mario wasn't sure if this Jeb guy was a good influence on Yoshi.

Re trenchchat: Isn't it fair to say that despite trenches and earthworks having been invented prior, the mode of warfare where dudes stood in one for months while a significant fraction of an industrial nation's gdp got turned into effective shells and liberally sprinkled over their heads wasn't old?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:25

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Horses were generally more valuable as logistics resources than as cavalry, even in the east. A shitload of horses died Germany / Austria Hungary due to the blockade, which I assume means they were eaten.

The problem with cavalry in ww1 is that the divisions used about as much supply as infantry divisions but were about a quarter of the size, having even less firepower. They were more of a burden than a help. Brusilov just kept them way back because they were mostly a burden. They lost all their value as an offensive unit.

The British always kept some on hand in the vain hope that they would break through but it never happened. That possibility still seems a bit more imaginary than real. There are examples of infantry companies holding off entire cavalry divisions early in the conflict.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 01:56

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

xthetenth posted:

Re trenchchat: Isn't it fair to say that despite trenches and earthworks having been invented prior, the mode of warfare where dudes stood in one for months while a significant fraction of an industrial nation's gdp got turned into effective shells and liberally sprinkled over their heads wasn't old?

I would say it's quite old. The Americans and French threw up earthworks and parallels at Yorktown, for example. Any pre-industrial siege is going to have some sort of proto-trench.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 02:14

brozozo: Apr 27, 2007; Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

gradenko_2000 posted:

http://www.pritzkermilitary.org/whats_on/programming-overview/

The Pritzker Military Library podcast is very Americentric, but otherwise puts out lots and lots of Mil-Hist related content. They have this excellent piece on Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol, another where Jonathan Parshall (Shattered Sword) and John Lundstrom (The First Team) talk about alt-history outcomes for Midway and lots of veteran interviews. The last one I listened to was Gen. John Allen giving a talk about leadership principles - it was a hell of a thing to find out a week later that he was the newly appointed guy in charge of the current offensive in the MidEast.

I've been looking for some more history related podcasts as well, and this fits the bill nicely!

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Radio 4's In Our Time is usually pretty good, though the host has a tendency to talk over the participants, presumably to keep things moving. One of its big plusses though is that it always features academics as guests, including some fairly big names in their field.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Dw1c7rxs6DmyK0pMRwpMq1/in-our-time-archive

Seconding this recommendation! I've been listening to In Our Time a lot lately. All the episodes that focus on history have been very enjoyable in my opinion.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 05:18

Monocled Falcon: Oct 30, 2011

What do historians think of John Mosier and his books Deathride and The Myth of the Great War? Had a run in with a guy who cited Deathride in an argument.

Amazon links:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War-Military-History/dp/0060084332/
https://www.amazon.com/Deathride-Hitler-Stalin-Eastern-1941-1945/dp/1416573488/

Read Deathride, thought it had some interesting points, but didn't make a strong enough case to prove itself.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 05:29

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

Monocled Falcon posted:

What do historians think of John Mosier and his books Deathride and The Myth of the Great War? Had a run in with a guy who cited Deathride in an argument.

Amazon links:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War-Military-History/dp/0060084332/
https://www.amazon.com/Deathride-Hitler-Stalin-Eastern-1941-1945/dp/1416573488/

Read Deathride, thought it had some interesting points, but didn't make a strong enough case to prove itself.

I ain't no historian, but looking at his books and the synopses thereof he seems to really miss people just accepting the discredited notion that America did everything all by itself as fact and really wishes we could all just go back to chanting "USA! USA!" now please.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 05:39

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Monocled Falcon posted:

What do historians think of John Mosier and his books Deathride and The Myth of the Great War? Had a run in with a guy who cited Deathride in an argument.

Amazon links:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War-Military-History/dp/0060084332/
https://www.amazon.com/Deathride-Hitler-Stalin-Eastern-1941-1945/dp/1416573488/

Read Deathride, thought it had some interesting points, but didn't make a strong enough case to prove itself.

Well, this part in the description of Deathride:

quote:

much of what we think is true about this conflict is, if not completely false, very nearly so

is usually a sign of a crackpot, whose main interest is selling books to uninformed suckers.

This part:

quote:

Mosier returns often to Soviet statistics cited since the war, determining each time that the figures "have very little credibility, are in fact simply another instance of how Stalin created facts to substantiate the pseudo-reality of his state."

sounds very much like he's making up his own "facts" to suit his argument, dismissing anything that contradicts his thesis.

Looking him up on Wiki, I see that he's actually an English professor and dabbles in military history as a hobby.

Conclusion: The guy has all the hallmarks of a crank. I see no reason to take him seriously.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 05:50

AceRimmer: Mar 18, 2009

A Real loving Historian posted:

The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One, by John Mosier (London: Profile Books, 2001; pp. 381. �20).

It is difficult to decide which aspect of this dreadful book is the most objectionable, its contempt for history as a discipline, its tendentiousness, its
ignorance of modern scholarship (especially on the British Army), its lack of understanding of what modern war is about, its infuriating factual inaccuracies
or its chauvinism. On balance, I think that chauvinism has it. Stephen Ambrose, reflecting on both world wars, came to the conclusion that Germany
was so powerful industrially and militarily and the German army so proficient in operational art that it could only be defeated by a coalition of three great
powers�the British Empire, France and Russia (supplemented, and then replaced, by the United States in 1917) in the First World War, the British
Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the United States in the Second World War. It is completely spurious to claim that any one of these elements was more
important than the others. Even if the US Army had �won the war� in the second half of 1918, which it did not, it could not have done so without the previous
efforts of the French, British and Russians. No one, least of all me, would dispute that the German army was a formidable opponent at the operational
and tactical level, but what is the point of �winning all the battles� if the outcome is the destruction of the German Empire and the descent of German society
into revolution, civil war and starvation? Professor Mosier�s war is fought in a complete political and strategic vacuum. There is virtually no discussion of the
naval war (where the United States� entry into the war did have an immediate effect) or of the conditions in Germany brought about by the Allied naval
blockade, or of the internal political, economic and social collapse of the Wilhelmine state in 1918. What we do have is systematic special pleading for
the German army on the battlefields of the Western Front, in which even the Marne (a catastrophe for Germany) and Verdun are turned into German
victories. Mosier is merely condescending towards the French, but he is totally scornful of the British. The poor old BEF is so regularly �annihilated� that one
wonders how the British managed to keep an army in the field, much less an army of 1.3m men that stood on the Western Front at the Armistice. No one
reading this book will derive any knowledge or understanding of the British Army�s rapid evolution from a small, colonial police force to one of the biggest
armies in the world, superbly equipped, technologically and tactically ingenious, capable of conducting intense, high tempo all-arms deep battles, an
evolution brought about while in contact with the main forces of a powerful enemy, generally holding the high ground, and in the difficult conditions of
coalition warfare. Brian Bond expressed the hope, some time ago, that writing on the First World War would move on from traditional concerns and
animosities to a proper scholarly and dispassionate assessment. If this book is anything to go by, I fear that we are in for a long wait.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:34

The Merry Marauder: Apr 4, 2009; "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

quote:

high tempo all-arms deep battles

Buzzword Bingo!

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:47

AceRimmer: Mar 18, 2009

Historians Are Mean! posted:

Mosier, John.Deathride, Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941�1945.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

John Mosier�s Deathride contends that Hitler came very close to winning in the East, because the Wehrmacht inflicted a ten-to-one casualty ratio on a nation with twice Germany�s population. As the Soviets self-evidently managed to sustain this �unsustainable� loss rate and defeat Germany, Mosier�s basic thesis is untenable, and the book contains a number of questionable supporting arguments.
Mosier accepts the Suvorov thesis that Stalin planned to attack Germany preemptively. Mosier details a number of Red Army deficiencies in training, leadership, and materiel, but does not explain why the Soviets would have attacked despite these weaknesses. The author contends that Germany lost an important opportunity, when Walter Wever died, to develop bombers capable of attacking the Urals. Yes, Soviet defenses in the Urals were weak�but they did not need to be strong. If the Luftwaffe had attacked the Urals, the Soviets would have deployed fighters and mauled the unescorted German bombers. Moreover, building strategic bombers would have come at the expense of other items. One cannot posit a German gain from strategic bombing without acknowledging the large opportunity costs.

Mosier notes that the Battle of Moscow caused fewer casualties than the battles fought in August and September. He greatly understates the effects of the Battle of Moscow on the German tank force, claiming that the Germans had 4,254 tanks in January 1942. He confuses the total inventory of tanks on all fronts with the number of operational tanks in the East, a much lower number. In addition, he ignores the huge losses in motor vehicles and horses that crippled German mobility in 1942. His claim that Tikhvin, Moscow, and Rostov were not �great victories� for Stalin is simply illogical, as the Germans did not achieve their objectives and took heavy losses in the process. Mosier believes that the result on the Eastern Front from December 1942 to March 1943 was a �bloody draw� because the Germans stabilized the front and inflicted larger losses on the Soviets than they suffered. In fact, the net result was a Soviet victory. The Germans needed to destroy the USSR in 1942, and the failure to do so ultimately doomed Germany.

The author claims that Germany won the battle of Kursk but threw the victory away. If so, then why were the Soviets able to advance after Kursk? Mosier blames this on German transfers to the West, but this is unconvincing. The Soviets pushed the Germans back across the Dnepr; therefore, they were actually winning, not merely inventing propaganda victories as Mosier insists. The author wonders why the war continued for ten months after the Soviets smashed Army Group Center in 1944. His analysis completely neglects logistical constraints on Allied progress. Germany�s ability to form a coherent defense was the consequence, not the cause, of the Allied advance slowing down in late 1944. The Allies were advancing away from their sources of supply and reinforcement. The Germans were falling back on theirs, and thus the Germans were able to reconstitute their armies and prolong the war.
Mosier�s assessment of the impact of lend-lease and Anglo-American military operations on Soviet victory has some merit. Many authors today excessively underrate these factors. But, Mosier goes too far when he claims that Stalin could never have prevailed without lend-lease and the Second Front.
The author�s argument that the Germans weren�t really defeated relies, at times, on picture books that show happy Germans posing on powerful new tanks (for example, see p. 270). This is laughable. German propaganda photographs naturally showed smiling, confident soldiers, not scowling, anxious soldiers, but such pictures did not correspond to military reality. Mosier concludes that World War II actually defeated both Hitler and Stalin. In his view, the war ultimately caused the Soviet collapse in 1991. The idea that Soviet collapse in 1991 was inevitable and predetermined in 1945,
and that subsequent Soviet and American actions did not affect the outcome of the Cold War, is impossible to accept. Thus, like much of the book, the conclusion is provocative but cannot survive close analysis.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:53

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Haha what? The germans won kursk now?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 07:30

Azran: Sep 3, 2012; And what should one do to be remembered?

quote:

The author�s argument that the Germans weren�t really defeated relies, at times, on picture books that show happy Germans posing on powerful new tanks (for example, see p. 270).

Holy poo poo.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 07:44

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

Slavvy posted:

Haha what? The germans won kursk now?

There's a a line of thinking that basically suggests that Kursk was a pile of German tactical victories that effectively amounted to a strategic defeat. Given the way this guy seems to think of war in pure "I killed more of your mans so I won!" absolute terms then you can easily see him being sure that Kursk was a German victory in the same way Vietnam was an American victory (stupid media ruining it for everyone! :argh:

# ? Sep 26, 2014 07:55

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

So all six of my guys got annihilated but ELEVEN OF YOUR GUYS DID and the two dudes you have remaining are irrelevant.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 08:07

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

In true French fashion, the Adrian helmet took something like 50 steps to manufacture, adding dongles and crests that made the helmet weaker. And the Brodie helmet looks like it could be made from a single stamp.

Eh, prolly three or four. If you form metal too fast it'll split or warp, so you need to gradually form it. We make the Ford oil pickup screens at work. The cups that make up the body are just conical with an open end on the bottom, but it takes 8 hits to run it through the press. One hit to cut the hole, 6 more to form the cup, and a final hit to cut the part off the scrap strip. Skip any one of those six hits and the cups split around the cuts

# ? Sep 26, 2014 09:39

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

John Mosier is also notably not employed as a historian, but as an English professor, he puts out these books as a side project. I've read the Blitzkrieg Myth and I don't particularly recommend it.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 09:47

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Deteriorata posted:

Looking him up on Wiki, I see that he's actually an English professor and dabbles in military history as a hobby.

This isn't always the sign of a nutbar; my favorite work on firearms is by a lawyer.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 10:28

Rockopolis: Dec 21, 2012; I MAKE FUN OF QUEER STORYGAMES BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH MY LIFE THAN MAKE OTHER PEOPLE CRY

I can't understand these kinds of games, and not getting it bugs me almost as much as me being weird

HEY GAL posted:

This isn't always the sign of a nutbar; my favorite work on firearms is by a lawyer.

Modern or historical lawyer?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 13:48

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

HEY GAL posted:

This isn't always the sign of a nutbar; my favorite work on firearms is by a lawyer.

By itself, no. It is a yellow flag, though, warning you to be cautious until you have enough evidence to trust his opinions.

In this case the other evidence turns it into a red flag.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 13:57

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

Pornographic Memory posted:

WHAT

How does a military adopt a saddle that doesn't work? It seems like it would be a pretty well understood technology for, well, a very very long time before that point.

Well, it's A-H, so the scope condition that you're dealing with is a totally hosed up procurement system from the manufacturer to the hofkriegsrat. What happened was that the saddle was all very well and good provided the horse wasn't wearing it all the time and that you could take it off and hang it up nicely in a stable. Of course, when you are on campaign for days straight in the saddle, or where the horse is saddled for a majority of the time, conditions are a bit different. The Austrian saddle somehow (I am not clear on the details) caused tremendously bad saddle sores, worse than other saddles, to the degree that it was basically impossible for A-H cavalry squadrons to ride horses anywhere.

Keep in mind that A-H got turbofucked by the Russians and the Serbs (lol) early in the war, which gives you some indication of just how incompetent they were.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 26, 2014

# ? Sep 26, 2014 13:57

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

Rockopolis posted:

Modern or historical lawyer?

Rules lawyer.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:12

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

On Kursk:

Something I learned fairly recently was that the Russians weren't just good at maskirovka (deception), they were good at reverse maskirovka (my term). That is, as much as they were able to keep their offensive preparations at Stalingrad and their defensive preparations at Kursk a secret, they also had an offensive aimed across the German defenses at the Mius river that they needed to take the pressure off at Kursk, and they distracted the Germans with it.

It was a genuine offensive, but in the run up to it they had a lot of radio traffic going on, the supply trucks drove with full headlights on at night and there was little noise discipline. A lot has been written about Panzers getting peeled off from Kursk at what could have been a decisive moment to fight in Italy, but they were also diverted out of Kursk in anticipation of this loud and super-conspicuous attack at the Mius.

Pornographic Memory posted:

WHAT

How does a military adopt a saddle that doesn't work? It seems like it would be a pretty well understood technology for, well, a very very long time before that point.

Reminder that during the preparations for Sealion, the task of building some of the barges for the amphibious landings was given to an engineer unit from Bavaria.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:38

Devlan Mud: Apr 10, 2006; I'll hear your stories when we come back, alright?

That Mosier guy sounds like some of the people I know from hobby stores that are huge Nazi apologists and have raging erections for anything German. Except he's in the position to publish his nonsense.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:05

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rockopolis posted:

Modern or historical lawyer?

Modern. Here it is, erryone read it.

Deteriorata posted:

By itself, no. It is a yellow flag, though, warning you to be cautious until you have enough evidence to trust his opinions.

In this case the other evidence turns it into a red flag.

OK, yeah. Just, military history has the most amateurs in it of any historical discipline, and I think that's a good thing.

Devlan Mud posted:

That Mosier guy sounds like some of the people I know from hobby stores that are huge Nazi apologists and have raging erections for anything German. Except he's in the position to publish his nonsense.

Oh, I see you've met them too. The penultimate chapter of this book, which I keep plugging here once a year or so, is about gamers. Out of date now, of course--I don't think there's anything about video games in there at all, for instance--but still very good.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Well, it's A-H, so the scope condition that you're dealing with is a totally hosed up procurement system from the manufacturer to the hofkriegstadt.

Hofkriegsrat, I think. What you just said means "high-war-city."

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 26, 2014

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:24

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

HEY GAL posted:

Hofkriegsrat, I think. What you just said means "high-war-city."

Oops! fixed, thanks.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:16

Don Gato: Apr 28, 2013; Actually a bipedal cat.; Grimey Drawer

Mosier sounds like the guys on the Paradox forums who confuse their modded copy of Hearts of Iron with reality.

:rolldice:

The tactical bombers just have to focus on destroying logistics, while paratrooper regiments simultaneously capture Moscow, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and every other VP within a thousand miles of the border and at the same time I send marine divisions to Vladivostok. Of course my fully mechanized armies will be rolling across to the Urals at this point, creating massive kettles for the Soviets to die in. And of course I can use my veteran paratroopers who took over England, so their xp bonus means they can last even longer in case of a fight. God this is so easy, why didn't Hitler do exactly what I'm doing?

Do you guys ever have to deal with people like that in real life? I kind of hope the answer is no and that they just stay in their basements all the time, and the few times that they do leave they're socially awkward and don't talk to anyone.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:45

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Don Gato posted:

Do you guys ever have to deal with people like that in real life? I kind of hope the answer is no and that they just stay in their basements all the time, and the few times that they do leave they're socially awkward and don't talk to anyone.

Naah. If you're an American and you've heard about the 30YW at all you're into that poo poo enough that the Nazi's been beaten out of you at some point. You sometimes come across amazingly tendentious anti-Catholic/anti-Protestant articles, though.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:54

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

gradenko_2000 posted:

On Kursk:

Something I learned fairly recently was that the Russians weren't just good at maskirovka (deception), they were good at reverse maskirovka (my term). That is, as much as they were able to keep their offensive preparations at Stalingrad and their defensive preparations at Kursk a secret, they also had an offensive aimed across the German defenses at the Mius river that they needed to take the pressure off at Kursk, and they distracted the Germans with it.

It was a genuine offensive, but in the run up to it they had a lot of radio traffic going on, the supply trucks drove with full headlights on at night and there was little noise discipline. A lot has been written about Panzers getting peeled off from Kursk at what could have been a decisive moment to fight in Italy, but they were also diverted out of Kursk in anticipation of this loud and super-conspicuous attack at the Mius.

By Kursk the Soviets were pretty much in a position to not bother with feinting and just attack everywhere. Whichever one worked was the "real" one.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:09

Monocled Falcon: Oct 30, 2011

I did some more research on my own and not does Mosier cite Victor Suvarov, but also the IHR.

So, yeah, it's total garbage.

Though the book does has at least one entertaining feature. It comes down rather heavily against German generals and takes Hitler's side against them.

Needlessly to say I was arguing with a Wehrmacht fanboy in youtube comments when he used this book as a source and the fact that part of it's thesis is that the military should have done a better job executing the will of its visionary Fuhrer is rather amusing.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:10

Hogge Wild: Aug 21, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Pillbug

Monocled Falcon posted:

I was arguing with a Wehrmacht fanboy in youtube comments

Why do you hate yourself?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:15

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Don Gato posted:

Mosier sounds like the guys on the Paradox forums who confuse their modded copy of Hearts of Iron with reality.

The tactical bombers just have to focus on destroying logistics, while paratrooper regiments simultaneously capture Moscow, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and every other VP within a thousand miles of the border and at the same time I send marine divisions to Vladivostok. Of course my fully mechanized armies will be rolling across to the Urals at this point, creating massive kettles for the Soviets to die in. And of course I can use my veteran paratroopers who took over England, so their xp bonus means they can last even longer in case of a fight. God this is so easy, why didn't Hitler do exactly what I'm doing?

Do you guys ever have to deal with people like that in real life? I kind of hope the answer is no and that they just stay in their basements all the time, and the few times that they do leave they're socially awkward and don't talk to anyone.

I once had a class where someone seriously suggested that the British should have landed troops to aid the Polish in their defense and that a sea power like Britain could have easily done so but decided not to for unspecified reasons. Somehow, my suggestion that the troops (which didn't exist, couldn't have been raised quickly enough if they , couldn't have been shipped to the Baltic before Poland surrenders) could have just landed on the German beaches north of Berlin and marched on the capital was considered preposterous and unrealistic.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:49

SocketWrench: Jul 8, 2012; by Fritz the Horse

gradenko_2000 posted:

On Kursk:

Something I learned fairly recently was that the Russians weren't just good at maskirovka (deception), they were good at reverse maskirovka (my term). That is, as much as they were able to keep their offensive preparations at Stalingrad and their defensive preparations at Kursk a secret, they also had an offensive aimed across the German defenses at the Mius river that they needed to take the pressure off at Kursk, and they distracted the Germans with it.

It was a genuine offensive, but in the run up to it they had a lot of radio traffic going on, the supply trucks drove with full headlights on at night and there was little noise discipline. A lot has been written about Panzers getting peeled off from Kursk at what could have been a decisive moment to fight in Italy, but they were also diverted out of Kursk in anticipation of this loud and super-conspicuous attack at the Mius.

Reminder that during the preparations for Sealion, the task of building some of the barges for the amphibious landings was given to an engineer unit from Bavaria.

If anything history can teach, Hitler and his Nazis were very gullible.

Don Gato posted:

Do you guys ever have to deal with people like that in real life? I kind of hope the answer is no and that they just stay in their basements all the time, and the few times that they do leave they're socially awkward and don't talk to anyone.

Not in the gamer sense, but same attitude. Normally have to hear it just before he gets a rude lesson in "poo poo don't work that way, son".

SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Sep 26, 2014

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:55

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

ArchangeI posted:

I once had a class where someone seriously suggested that the British should have landed troops to aid the Polish in their defense and that a sea power like Britain could have easily done so but decided not to for unspecified reasons. Somehow, my suggestion that the troops (which didn't exist, couldn't have been raised quickly enough if they , couldn't have been shipped to the Baltic before Poland surrenders) could have just landed on the German beaches north of Berlin and marched on the capital was considered preposterous and unrealistic.

What was it like being classmates with Winston Churchill?

_{Yes I know, the timeline doesn't fit for saving Poland, but close enough}

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:56

AceRimmer: Mar 18, 2009

ArchangeI posted:

I once had a class where someone seriously suggested that the British should have landed troops to aid the Polish in their defense and that a sea power like Britain could have easily done so but decided not to for unspecified reasons. Somehow, my suggestion that the troops (which didn't exist, couldn't have been raised quickly enough if they , couldn't have been shipped to the Baltic before Poland surrenders) could have just landed on the German beaches north of Berlin and marched on the capital was considered preposterous and unrealistic.

I'm curious what the proposed landing site was. Danzig? Memel? Konigsberg itself for some sort of tragicomic Dieppe raid version 0.5? :allears:

# ? Sep 26, 2014 18:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 00:08

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Don Gato posted:

Mosier sounds like the guys on the Paradox forums who confuse their modded copy of Hearts of Iron with reality.

The tactical bombers just have to focus on destroying logistics, while paratrooper regiments simultaneously capture Moscow, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and every other VP within a thousand miles of the border and at the same time I send marine divisions to Vladivostok. Of course my fully mechanized armies will be rolling across to the Urals at this point, creating massive kettles for the Soviets to die in. And of course I can use my veteran paratroopers who took over England, so their xp bonus means they can last even longer in case of a fight. God this is so easy, why didn't Hitler do exactly what I'm doing?

Do you guys ever have to deal with people like that in real life? I kind of hope the answer is no and that they just stay in their basements all the time, and the few times that they do leave they're socially awkward and don't talk to anyone.

In the world of board-game wargames, I have managed to meet a few Wehraboos face to face and the funniest thing to do in their presence is saying anything remotely negative about their lord and saviour, general Rommel. They are incredibly easy to annoy and I avoid them if at all possible.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 19:00

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

«‹›1137 »