|
Big Willy Style posted:I have never really seen it discussed in this thread but can someone talk about the history of child soldiers? When did they start appearing? I figure they became more common when rifles were wide spread because a gun makes a kid useful but they would obviously be no good carrying around pikes and poo poo. While Burschel has seen very young common soldiers, the children I've seen are often flutists or drummers (their wrists were supposed to be more flexible than the wrists of adults, so although adult drummers exist they're not supposed to be as good). According to the customs of the time, these are lower officers and on paper they'll make as much as the average pikeman or more. What could a prepubescent need with 12 or 13 gulden a month? Lucky little bastards. I've also seen a lot of boys with vons on their names who are beginning their education. The first military academies were formed in the 1690s--before that, being a child soldier is how you learn how to be a commander in the future. Tilly began his career at fourteen, and so did Wallenstein. (The young men I've seen are related, not to the captains of their own companies, but to the captains of other companies from the ones where they're serving. So they're also making social connections.) On the other hand, predatory recruiters can sign up children, whether as soldiers or seeking to fill their rosters without caring what with. Soldiers' servants are usually young, but they don't show up in the records. Grimmelshausen was kidnapped at the age of ten and forced to serve some Hessian mercenaries.  Caravaggio, Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt with his Page. This is the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, on the left, and on the right is probably Nicholas de Paris Boissy, who will have a pretty good career. Is the artist interested in the light on de Paris Boissy's pale Northern hair, trying to pick a fight, or flirting with him? It's Caravaggio, so: yes HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 17, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
So if Il-Sung was basically the Korean Stalin (industrialized a rural backwater at massive nigh-unbearable cost via heavy doses of absolute power), are there Soviet analogies to the bumbling chucklefucks Jong-Il and Jong-Un?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Can anyone cite for me where something like this quote came from: "a gun on land is worth two on the water"? I feel like it was from one of Foote's books but I wasn't sure if he was quoting someone else, or if it is even from him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Can anyone cite for me where something like this quote came from: "a gun on land is worth two on the water"? I feel like it was from one of Foote's books but I wasn't sure if he was quoting someone else, or if it is even from him. https://books.google.com/books?id=6...20water&f=false
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:australian parliamentary debates, 1903. Talking about the defense of ports. Isn't that basically "One gun where the walls aren't is worth two where they are?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So if Il-Sung was basically the Korean Stalin (industrialized a rural backwater at massive nigh-unbearable cost via heavy doses of absolute power), are there Soviet analogies to the bumbling chucklefucks Jong-Il and Jong-Un? Khrushchev was pretty bumbling and had dumb ideas about things (especially military), but I don't think he was quite as bad as either of those two. Brezhnev's self-aggrandising writings and sad attempts to imitate Lenin make him a pretty solid Kim Jong-Un though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Isn't that basically "One gun where the walls aren't is worth two where they are?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So if Il-Sung was basically the Korean Stalin (industrialized a rural backwater at massive nigh-unbearable cost via heavy doses of absolute power), are there Soviet analogies to the bumbling chucklefucks Jong-Il and Jong-Un? I don't really think Stalin is a good analogue to Kim Il-Sung. Maybe he'd have liked to be, but the level of control in North Korea is nigh on incomparable to anything outside of fiction. and I don't think Il-Sung deserves the level of credit he's getting here for developing NK. total control had a handful of minor benefits (it did impart a work ethic and also forced people out of homelessness), but it was the ridiculously favourable trade deals that let the place carry on for so long. when they ended, even under Il-Sung (kind of), so did NK. comparing its economy to the south isn't really fair either considering the south had to recover from Syngman Rhee
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Well Syngman Rhee would be getting their love if he hadn't sided with NATO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Khrushchev de-Stalinized USSR. North Korea has no equivalents because power is passed on in the family and Kim Il-Sung's successors of course have little reason to attack their father and grandfather. It's as if Stalin had passed power on to his less capable but just as cruel son.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Burschel has seen children as young as ten in his records, but the youngest I've ever seen is fourteen. I don't know why there's a difference between northwest Germany and Saxony here. You know, it' pretty weird to see a man who taught your classes several times a week for years referenced as an actual authority on an internet comedy forum (that's not to say that Burschel isn't an authority - he absolutely is).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:You know, it' pretty weird to see a man who taught your classes several times a week for years referenced as an actual authority on an internet comedy forum (that's not to say that Burschel isn't an authority - he absolutely is). Edit: Also, servants don't appear in infantry records. They appear in cavalry records because the cavalry is very interested in tracking the number of horses per company. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:australian parliamentary debates, 1903. Talking about the defense of ports. I found this when googling; is anyone else aware of it being said somewher else? This seems like a...rather obscure source.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I found this when googling; is anyone else aware of it being said somewher else? This seems like a...rather obscure source.  Naval History of the Civil War (Porter, 1886) says "during the night of the 5th it was conceded that one gun on land was about equal to three on the water". (in reference to the Battle of Fort Henry) AceRimmer fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
No one? I realize it's a fairly overlooked part of the war, but anything helps, even if you can just point me at another source:Tias posted:So I'm about to GM a roleplaying session where my players get the unenviable roles of squad members in the Romanian 4th army, during the Battle of Podu Iloaiei. It's basically going to be an instructive, nerve-pumping "look how lovely WW2 is if your equipment is not up to scratch" game played for an afternoon or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
100 Years Ago A pair of big days, interspersed with a couple of amusing stories I've clipped for y'all from the paper.  Yesterday: The Germans launch a major naval raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby. There then follows a day of deeply confused naval manoeuvring that resembles nothing so much as a pair of clowns trying to throw buckets of whitewash at each other while blindfolded and with their shoelaces tied together. More than 100 ships are looking for trouble in the North Sea today, and mostly they fail at it. If you're looking for an undeservedly-little-known military event to use as a point of divergence for some alt-hist wankery, you could do a lot worse than this one.  Today: The French begin their winter offensive with the First Battle of Artois. Mostly, all it achieves is planting for the iron harvest of 1959 (a very good year). Louis Barthas is going over the top, and you'll be shocked to know that he's got plenty to complain about. We also take a moment to catch up with the men of the Emden, who have a shiny new boat and are indulging in some DIY to pass the time on the next leg of their voyage. And the Telegraph's editorial in response to yesterday's raid is spectacularly patronising and sanctimonious, even by contemporary standards. (PS: That second clipping is far from the last time that a gramophone will be used as a weapon of warfare.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Tias posted:No one? I realize it's a fairly overlooked part of the war, but anything helps, even if you can just point me at another source: I'd say give them Pz35(t)s, at least. They might not be super famous, but they were decent little tanks, and more than enough against Soviet marines climbing out of the Black Sea with a rifle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Generation Kill, first battle, casualty reports from Task Force Taurawa, elements of which drove through and entire city of Iraqis. If I remember correctly, the UK lost more people to America than Iraq in the first Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend some good books on the Civil War? I'm looking for a Christmas gift for my brother. Books focused on Virginia would be good, whole war also okay. Doesn't have to be strictly military history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:No one? I realize it's a fairly overlooked part of the war, but anything helps, even if you can just point me at another source: This is a little bit reductive, but Steve Jackson Games actually published a Romanian WWII sourcebook. Have you given it a look?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Don't you belong to the Kroll Arbeitskreis or something? I read people you know every day. Heavens, no. I was done with history as an academic career after I finished my Masters. Kroll just always loved to use the Saxon Army as an example in class, so it was not very surprising to see that he had actually done work on them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Can anyone cite for me where something like this quote came from: "a gun on land is worth two on the water"? I feel like it was from one of Foote's books but I wasn't sure if he was quoting someone else, or if it is even from him. I'm reading a biography of John Adams right now and he says "One sailor is worth more to our cause than two soldiers" in one of his letters, or something to that effect. I can dig up the exact quote if you want. It was said during the War for Independence so this would have been in the early 1780s. Here is the book: http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/0743223136
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:No one? I realize it's a fairly overlooked part of the war, but anything helps, even if you can just point me at another source: I actually did a thesis on Romania in World War 2, so I can talk about a variety of topics. Most soldiers were eager at the opening of the war, but as it went on, like anyone else, their morale faltered. By the time they got to Stalingrad, where Antonescu had brought in every man he could spare, a lot of the Romanian soldiers were conscripts and not the most spirited about fighting in distant lands. The Germans regarded them with contempt most of the time, to the point where they just stopped feeding the Romanians in the 6th army perimeter after they ran out of artillery ammunition. After the disasters around Stalingrad, the Romanians took more than a year basically trying to recover from the disastrous loss. In 1944, they had finally managed to reconstitute a proper army, and morale was reasonably high in anticipation of defending the country. Most Romanian soldiers were very poor, and the country still had the paradigm of aristocratic officers and peasant soldiers. The country was backwards in almost every respect. Oil production made the country rich enough to buy a sizable and equipped army, but the men manning it were inadequate in technical education and skill. While this was not as bad in 1944 as it was in say 1941, it was still a problem in the country. There was very little mechanical knowledge, and agriculture was not mechanized very well at all. The Romanian army was extremely poorly motorized, and many of the soldiers had scarcely seen a car, much less a tank. The Iron Guard was actually suppressed during the war. Antonescu distrusted them and while there may be some sentiments among the men, it was not open. The Germans did keep Horia Sima, the Iron Guard leader in exile, but in general they preferred Antonescu and thought him much more competent than Sima. This is probably why the coup in late 1944 was able to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The only thing that is debatable is whether it's embarrassing. It can't really be argued that: (b) Technically the comparatively minor remnants of the IRA that did exist during the war was actually friendly with British intelligence. They had no direct contact with the Nazi party, just a lot of attempts to get support via the Abwehr. None of them were successful and the operations were pretty much standard Abwehr bungling. The IRA that were "enemies of the Irish state" had won an election and now WERE the Irish state. (c) this one is kind of laughable. Where are you getting this from? The links between the UK and Ireland are still strong and the border is functionally non existent. The free travel area pre-dates Schengen, which neither country is a member of, and the currency was pegged together and virtually interchangeable until the EMU. During the war British ships were repaired in Irish shipyards and we still supplied them with food and one Irish naval vessel even evacuated British troops from Dunkirk. Irish sovereignty technically didn't exist until the 1949 constitution, despite Dev talking out his arse on record a few times. George VI was officially King of Ireland until then. Seriously, there's a lot of flat out wrong and even more oversimplification going on in your posts. ArchangeI posted:You know, it' pretty weird to see a man who taught your classes several times a week for years referenced as an actual authority on an internet comedy forum (that's not to say that Burschel isn't an authority - he absolutely is). Panzeh posted:I actually did a thesis on Romania in World War 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I'm midway through Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom and finished God's Chinese Son a while back. This taps out my local library, so are there any other reasonably accessible books I could track down about the Tai Ping Rebellion? Something about Shi Dakai would be great, but I'm not picky. (I guess I could just learn Chinese, but it's really hard.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This tension particularly manifests itself in relation to some giant dam they built, which despite being an industrial wonder also brought on massive famine in the nearby area. Apparently when they display it to visitors they sort of appear embarrassed and proud at the same time. VICE, huh? HEY GAL posted:What could a prepubescent need with 12 or 13 gulden a month? Lucky little bastards. Camp followers were a thing, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
I don't recall if there were people knowledgeable of WWII air warfare were out and about in this thread, but I've just started an indie game project for a WWII Eastern front themed SRPG and I'd be interested in getting help compiling a base of reference knowledge for making the game as accurate as possible within the constraints of the genre. It would also be useful if someone really knowledgeable in WWII planes were interested in inspecting my 3D models for egregious inaccuracies, for the most part my workflow is to google technical documents for Front/Side/Top view and use them as reference for modeling. I feel they at least match the silhouette but the more accurate I can make the contours of it before I move on to texturing the better. Also any books would be appreciated written by Soviet airforce pilots, I've read Samurai! by Saburo Sakai and it was wonderful, so anything along those lines in readability and personal touch would be great. Disclaimer that we've basically just started but the sooner we do research the better I feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Also any books would be appreciated written by Soviet airforce pilots', Ive read Samurai! by Saburo Sakai and it was wonderful, so anything along those lines in readability and personal touch would be great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:I'm pretty sure Foote refers to it in the section on the Battle of Mobile Bay in Red River to Appomatox as a Civil War era belief so I guess it's an earlier source. That is it!! Thank you!! Raenir Salazar posted:I don't recall if there were people knowledgeable of WWII air warfare were out and about in this thread, but I've just started an indie game project for a WWII Eastern front themed SRPG and I'd be interested in getting help compiling a base of reference knowledge for making the game as accurate as possible within the constraints of the genre. I'll help if you're interested, I have a pretty robust knowledge base on that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
While we are on the topic of Soviet sources, I started reading Ivan's War, thanks for whoever recommended it in the thread. As an aside, I did find this phrase really nice as a summary of the WW2 Red Army.quote:"In 1941, Soviet recruits faced the most professional fighting force the continent had ever seen. By 1945, they had defeated it. Also! Koramei posted:I don't really think Stalin is a good analogue to Kim Il-Sung. Maybe he'd have liked to be, but the level of control in North Korea is nigh on incomparable to anything outside of fiction. Yes, it is pretty funny that Juche is all about self-reliance and all that, because the North Korean economy took a gigantic plunge when China and Russia stopped dealing with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Isn't that basically "One gun where the walls aren't is worth two where they are?" Not just fortification - it's a lot easier to aim a gun when you know exactly where it is, it isn't moving, and you've pre-ranged your aim to all sorts of distances to and over the horizon. A ship, rocking in the waves and moving around, is a far more difficult platform to shoot from than coastal guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:No, it's "build a fort at your port." All my ports be forts
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:All my ports be forts I'm so sorry 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
What happens if you command "Turn to port" in a sailing ship and that direction is opposite to the port?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What happens if you command "Turn to port" in a sailing ship and that direction is opposite to the port?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
This thread needs to be decimated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:This thread needs to be decimated. And, no more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:53
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:(a) "relatively easily" was not the opinion of the hero of British military. If Britain wanted to repeat the 1919-1922 war while fighting elsewhere then it surely could try, but without an already extant infrastructure and at least partially sympathetic population there would be no chance of doing so without majorly diverting resources from elsewhere. Perhaps the most glib part of my post. It would have been an ungodly distraction to the war effort, that's true, though I think control of the old treaty ports could have been done. I think a major consideration is actually the USA's entrance to the war; whatever the gain is for Britain in securing Irish ports, the benefit is minimal if it makes US entry and commitment to the war in Europe less likely. quote:(b) Technically the comparatively minor remnants of the IRA that did exist during the war was actually friendly with British intelligence. They had no direct contact with the Nazi party, just a lot of attempts to get support via the Abwehr. None of them were successful and the operations were pretty much standard Abwehr bungling. The IRA that were "enemies of the Irish state" had won an election and now WERE the Irish state. I'm not even sure what we can be talking about anymore, which I suppose is partly because the Republican movement is quite fragmentary. It's certainly the case that there is direct contact with the Abwehr - as you acknowledge - so it feels to me that to emphasise that there is no contact with the Nazis is to make a distinction without a difference. The people that 'WERE' the Irish state (that is to say, former members of the IRA), on the other hand, were collaborating with British intelligence against Seán Russell and others: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12848272. Emergency powers were used to deal with large numbers of the IRA, in large part to maintain neutrality and to consolidate the newly formed state. quote:(c) this one is kind of laughable. Where are you getting this from? The links between the UK and Ireland are still strong and the border is functionally non existent. The free travel area pre-dates Schengen, which neither country is a member of, and the currency was pegged together and virtually interchangeable until the EMU. During the war British ships were repaired in Irish shipyards and we still supplied them with food and one Irish naval vessel even evacuated British troops from Dunkirk. Irish sovereignty technically didn't exist until the 1949 constitution, despite Dev talking out his arse on record a few times. George VI was officially King of Ireland until then. I meant 'there is a tangible fear [at the time]'. The notion that Ireland wasn't a sovereign nation before the 1949 constitution is absurd, getting out of the commonwealth and binning George VI is more formal and symbolic than functional - which must be what you really mean when you say it 'technically didn't exist'. If there isn't a concern at the time about making an alliance with Britain that's related to these kind of fears, all you are left with is the suggestion that Ireland didn't enter the war for purely strategic reasons, which I think is highly unconvincing. So I'm not sure what your point is - maybe you could put forward an idea of what you think is going on at the time? That might be easier to interact with. JcDent posted:VICE, huh? Yeah. Truly one of the most bizarre documentaries I have ever seen. When they lay out a banquet for something like 150 people for just him to prove the country isn't starving is one of the oddest pieces of totalitarian behaviour I can remember hearing about. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:This is a little bit reductive, but Steve Jackson Games actually published a Romanian WWII sourcebook. Have you given it a look? No! Thanks a lot, it seems worth a peek for :5bux: Panzeh posted:After the disasters around Stalingrad, the Romanians took more than a year basically trying to recover from the disastrous loss. In 1944, they had finally managed to reconstitute a proper army, and morale was reasonably high in anticipation of defending the country. Most Romanian soldiers were very poor, and the country still had the paradigm of aristocratic officers and peasant soldiers. The country was backwards in almost every respect. Oil production made the country rich enough to buy a sizable and equipped army, but the men manning it were inadequate in technical education and skill. While this was not as bad in 1944 as it was in say 1941, it was still a problem in the country. There was very little mechanical knowledge, and agriculture was not mechanized very well at all. The Romanian army was extremely poorly motorized, and many of the soldiers had scarcely seen a car, much less a tank. ..So they wouldn't really be using tanks at all by April 1944? The entry describes the battle such:"First Romanian Panzerdivision held off the Soviet tanks for a single day. At the end of the battle, the Germans managed to drive the Soviets back to the positions they held before the battle." Which raises the question, if it was only a romanian division, how did GERMANS manage to drive the soviets back? Also, I wonder what kind of mechanization is present, calling it a panzer-division seems to merit at least a couple of armoured cars or something. quote:The Iron Guard was actually suppressed during the war. Antonescu distrusted them and while there may be some sentiments among the men, it was not open. The Germans did keep Horia Sima, the Iron Guard leader in exile, but in general they preferred Antonescu and thought him much more competent than Sima. This is probably why the coup in late 1944 was able to succeed. Right, my bad - I was trying to enquire about the general level of loyalty to officers and the ideal of obeying the Marshal. My feeling is that soldiers were pretty stoked about defending Romania itself, but must have known that a great deal of Russian armor was headed west. Thanks a lot for your help!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Tias posted:..So they wouldn't really be using tanks at all by April 1944? The entry describes the battle such:"First Romanian Panzerdivision held off the Soviet tanks for a single day. At the end of the battle, the Germans managed to drive the Soviets back to the positions they held before the battle." I think that around 1944, Romania had some Panzer IV's they got from Germany, along with self-propelled anti-tank guns and a bunch of StuGs. Off the top of my head, they had one armored regiment in their armored division, so it was more like one of those pre-ww2 armor divisions than a proper armored division.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:18
|
|
