|
I think "empty" is explained by "hot" in Spain. Much like "suicidal" is by "poor" in my ol' Lithuania 
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
blackmongoose posted:This. Based on the Serbians and other Balkans-born people I've met: Any serbian will tell you that the actual best football players are serbs from the domestic leagues. Also totally not a former death squad member anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I think "empty" is explained by "hot" in Spain. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Forums poster my dad, get in here and explain yourself! It's not just Serbia. Yugoslavia was really, really good at sports (especially team sports), and the successor states kept up with the tradition. Serbia excels the most because we've got the highest share of the population, but Croatia is nothing to sneeze at, either. The most hilarious example would be water polo, where Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro are all in the overall top 5. (Serbia and Hungary are fighting for 1st place, Montenegro and Croatia for 3rd, and Italy at 5th place is making rude gestures at US) Although we have a general problem that a lot of our facilities have deteriorated (for example, one of our Olympic medal winning swimmers had to train in a public pool), and that a lot of extremely talented youth gets stuck in random village teams because coaches are assholes who convince their parents to sign lovely long-term contracts, and then use the contract as a blackmail of sorts to squeeze out as much money as they can before they accept annulling the contract. It's almost job slavery, in a weird way. Happened to a really talented 15yo from my hometown who was supposed to start playing in an important Spanish soccer club's youth team.  Hell, I trained athletics, and later basketball when I was a kid, and Ranko Žeravica told me I looked like I had talent (probably one of the dearest memories of my childhood, I still keep the picture I took with him), but all the coaches I had were complete assholes, and (due to that, and a few other things that happened) I gave up on sports more-less completely while still really young. I don't think I'll ever stop regretting that.JcDent posted:Much like "suicidal" is by "poor" in my ol' Lithuania A pox on you Lithuanians, you have an amazing basketball team, and we always end up playing against you early in the championship.  Back to military history, why were those tiny-rear end one man crew tanks built? Was there a particular niche they excelled in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
my dad posted:Back to military history, why were those tiny-rear end one man crew tanks built? Was there a particular niche they excelled in? They're the predecessor to the apc. An armoured thing that moves with the infantry on an attack and provides supporting mg fire. This was based on the assumption of WW1 style static warfare where infantry would be moving short distances during the attack but need maximum protection for the initial combat. When it became apparent that post-WW1 warfare would be mobile again then the need for a vehicle to move infantry about in and the need for a lightly armoured vehicle that could provide support in combat got merged into the APC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Speaking of mercenary dads, I did find some single fathers in the muster rolls. "Hat ein kind, aber ohne Weib." Godspeed, you two.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
my dad posted:A pox on you Lithuanians, you have an amazing basketball team, and we always end up playing against you early in the championship. Well, yeah, people who like basketball consider Serbians to fiercest opponents in Europe/at all. Alchenar posted:They're the predecessor to the apc. An armoured thing that moves with the infantry on an attack and provides supporting mg fire. This was based on the assumption of WW1 style static warfare where infantry would be moving short distances during the attack but need maximum protection for the initial combat. When it became apparent that post-WW1 warfare would be mobile again then the need for a vehicle to move infantry about in and the need for a lightly armoured vehicle that could provide support in combat got merged into the APC. Speaking of lovely tanks and APC, Guderian's tank book states that later tank attacks failed because infantry couldn't move fast enough to take the trenches that tanks conquered (early tank attacks failed because tanks were too few). I probably asked this already, but why didn't they use cavalry as impromptu mech infantry? Tanks force folks out of trenches, cavalry swoops in, dismounts, and holds them till actual infantry arrived. Too susceptible to artillery/MGs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, yeah, people who like basketball consider Serbians to fiercest opponents in Europe/at all. Given the soil conditions on much of the front, no one was going to do any swooping of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Speaking of lovely tanks and APC, Guderian's tank book states that later tank attacks failed because infantry couldn't move fast enough to take the trenches that tanks conquered (early tank attacks failed because tanks were too few). I probably asked this already, but why didn't they use cavalry as impromptu mech infantry? Tanks force folks out of trenches, cavalry swoops in, dismounts, and holds them till actual infantry arrived. Too susceptible to artillery/MGs? Cavalry was also really limited as a front-line fighting force. In most armies, cavalry squads/ sections were smaller than their infantry counterparts, and they usually to lost 20-25% of their fighting strength to act as horse-holders while their comrades dismounted to fight. Furthermore, they didn't have much in the way or organic heavy weapons. US Army cavalry units, for example, were very slow to issue BARs and they had much fewer MGs than an similarly-sized rifle unit. It's not that cavalry couldn't be used effectively in WWII, the Russians made several effective deep cavalry raids early in the war and the Germans retained several mounted units, including the Waffen SS's Florian Geyer division (although this unit, like many mounted units, spent much of the war in an anti-partisan role). The obvious solution to Guderian's problem would have been tank desant tactics. Wonder why that wasn't tried (although it may have been).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Because cavalry is actually outrageously expensive compared to the benefits it provides. I read somewhere that just the food for the horses cost the Polish interwar army an equivalent of a brand new platoon of 7TP tanks. You might be better off equipping your grunts with bicycles, but that's a fairly inefficient solution (imagine lugging around a bike wherever you go in a combat zone) to a fairly rare problem (because most tank assaults did, in fact, succeed).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Speaking of lovely tanks and APC, Guderian's tank book states that later tank attacks failed because infantry couldn't move fast enough to take the trenches that tanks conquered (early tank attacks failed because tanks were too few). I probably asked this already, but why didn't they use cavalry as impromptu mech infantry? Tanks force folks out of trenches, cavalry swoops in, dismounts, and holds them till actual infantry arrived. Too susceptible to artillery/MGs? Not enough horses, and also mounted units would have created a huge logistic burden - in WWI, feeding a horse is equivalent in weight terms to feeding ten men. EDIT: I think we're generally confusing tactical movement here, with strategic movement, which is I think what Guderian is talking about. Tank riders, bikes, horses are fine for getting small units of people around moderate distances in the course of an individual battle, but not entire *divisions*, adding up to millions of troops, with the entire associated supply chains, command mechanisms, support staff, shelter, heavy weapons etc etc over the vast distances of Russia. The latter is a far more difficult problem to solve. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Well, it was Achtung-Panzer, and he devotes a sizeable portion of it for tanks and tank development in WWI. He also writes about uses of tank and how early tank battles were doomed by things like penny-pursing(?) as in using too few tanks, while last obstacle that tanks faced was infantry not moving fast enough to consolidate on the gains. He also thrashed cavalry as no good piece of poo poo that sucked even before the Great War. On the other hand, he might be muddying the waters a little to get his dream of tank armies followed by motorized/mechanized infantry, instead of keeping cavalry around (supposedly cavalrymen were very much against tanks) or using tanks as infantry support. On the side: bicycles in attack in WWI is probably the only thing that would make WWI fighting more horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, it was Achtung-Panzer, and he devotes a sizeable portion of it for tanks and tank development in WWI. He also writes about uses of tank and how early tank battles were doomed by things like penny-pursing(?) as in using too few tanks, while last obstacle that tanks faced was infantry not moving fast enough to consolidate on the gains. He also thrashed cavalry as no good piece of poo poo that sucked even before the Great War. Penny-packeting (as in, a small number of sweets in a small bag, useful only for pacifying small children). There's a historian called Stephen Badsey who characterises several cavalry operations during 1916 as being like very short-range paratroopers, galloping through a gap in the line, getting a mile or two forward, then dismounting and holding the forward position on foot until the PBI could catch them up. In particular there's some very little-known moments in late July which with a little more luck could have won High Wood and/or Delville Wood in a day for almost no casualties, compared to the months and tens of thousands that it actually did take. Of course, in order to use the cavalry in that fashion, a load of things had to go right. First you had to create a gap wide enough for the cavalry to gallop through without getting enfiladed to gently caress; then you had to not tear up the ground so badly that the cavalry couldn't gallop over it; then you had to have good enough communications to recognise that an opportunity was there, and to order the advance at the right moment; then you had to recognise that they'd dismounted and send the infantry up to consolidate. It was a good idea in theory, and who knows, if it had got the infantry the other side of High Wood in July, it might have been used more widely. Possibly it was just slightly too complicated a thing to do under the constraints of battle. (If they'd only had radios, vol. 45...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, it was Achtung-Panzer, and he devotes a sizeable portion of it for tanks and tank development in WWI. He also writes about uses of tank and how early tank battles were doomed by things like penny-pursing(?) as in using too few tanks, while last obstacle that tanks faced was infantry not moving fast enough to consolidate on the gains. He also thrashed cavalry as no good piece of poo poo that sucked even before the Great War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, it was Achtung-Panzer, and he devotes a sizeable portion of it for tanks and tank development in WWI. He also writes about uses of tank and how early tank battles were doomed by things like penny-pursing(?) as in using too few tanks, while last obstacle that tanks faced was infantry not moving fast enough to consolidate on the gains. He also thrashed cavalry as no good piece of poo poo that sucked even before the Great War. I don't know about German cavalry, but Soviet cavalry was incredibly reluctant to trade their horses for tanks, despite the huge amount of encouragement and prestige surrounding positions associated with mechanisation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:42
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I don't know about German cavalry, but Soviet cavalry was incredibly reluctant to trade their horses for tanks, despite the huge amount of encouragement and prestige surrounding positions associated with mechanisation. A horse is probably quite good in such a large, open and flat country with mediocre roads. I think cavalry was more relevant in the Eastern Front than the west in WW1 because of the relative room for manoeuvre - although I may be mistaken. People do form extraordinarily strong bonds with these animals when they work with them, too, particularly if any mech they have previously worked with has been unreliable. The advantages to the conversion are probably much more apparent in wartime when you actually try to use your horses to Do A Thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Most of them haven't ever seen a tractor, let alone worked with one. The cavalry was just incredibly conservative and averse to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On the side: bicycles in attack in WWI is probably the only thing that would make WWI fighting more horrible. Ye of no faith! If anything, equipping more troops with bicycles from the get go would possibly have avoided the deadlock in the west when all gaps found could have been exploited decisively in the first months. Or maybe not but it's a nice thought. Besides, military bicycles kick rear end:  "Halt! Das ist ein Tollway! You must pay 1 Pfennig! Halt du Schwein!" "Essen mein Scheisse, 'goons!"  Okay, technically not a bicycle... P.S. One obscure piece of trivia is that the 1914 Tour de France started on the day that Franz Ferdinand was shot and ended two days before A-H declared war on Serbia. The 1914 Tour was won by a Belgian who continued to win in 1919 when the next Tour was arranged, but many other cyclists didn't survive the war. This Guardian article lists a whole bunch of them and at least one of them died in a traffic accident while serving in a bicycle battalion. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2014/jul/01/tour-de-france-remember-first-world-war-dead This entry really picqued my interest, though: quote:Francois Lafourcade, who lit up the first Pyreneean stages and poisoned Paul Duboc in 1911, died in 1917. Duboc was luckier; he survived the attempted poisoning but died in the second world war at the age of 57. quote:Paul Duboc (Rouen, 2 April 1884 – 19 August 1941, Paris) was a French professional road bicycle racer from 1907 through 1927. Despite winning 5 career stages in the Tour de France, he may be most remembered for being disqualified at the 1919 Tour de France for borrowing a car to go and repair his pedal axle. In 1911, Duboc was close to winning the Tour de France, when he became ill after drinking from a poisoned bottle given to him. His fans were blaming the classification leader Gustave Garrigou, and the Tour organizers advised Garrigou to ride under disguise. Duboc would end the 1911 Tour de France in second place, his best result.  cycling was serious business back then already
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Touch wood, we'll be caught back up fully by tomorrow. New Year's Day: Down goes HMS Formidable, from the same squadron as Bulwark. The message that submarines will seriously gently caress you up is finally beginning to percolate through the Admiralty. We've also got a general review of strategy for the Entente, the Central Powers, and checking in quickly with the position of Italy. (Belligerent, and with nutters at the wheel.) 2 January: Russia appeals for help from Britain against the Ottomans. An explanation of what people actually mean when they casually toss out the phrase "forcing the Dardanelles" and assume you're intimately familiar with the concept. In the trenches, Louis Barthas is waking up in the mornings to find icicles hanging off his moustache. Jean Crapaud was never so well named. 3 January: A look at the strategic role that Britain will be playing for pretty much the whole of 1915: in brief, it's forced subservience to French wishes on the Western Front, continued mastery of the North Sea, and struggling mightily against mission creep everywhere else. 4 January: Life in the trenches is still poo poo. Virtually everywhere in France has a Dead Cow Farm. And I didn't even get round to mentioning the rats yet!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Those two images are some of the best things to be posted ITT. Japanese soldiers cycling into Singapore:  End result: 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Don't forget that Budyonny was arguably one of the great horse breeders of the 20th century, and his breed is still popular for sports and work alike. Also horses are cowards and rather fragile under certain conditions, but generally can be much more resilient than they are commonly given credit. Horses are well suited even for fairly complicated terrain, and the Budyonny horse in particular is renowned for its ability to survive without much human care - several populations have even been released into the wild (to prove their suitability fro Russian climate) and remained self-sustaining without any intervention. I think it's understandable, given the tradition and effort invested into reforming Soviet cavalry, that it tried to preserve itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
The claim of the Japanese overwhelming Malaya thanks to bikes is certainly popular, but I'm not convinced. In Malaya - just like in Borneo, Sulawesi and elsewhere - Japanese planners relied on bikes seized from local population rather than on some sort of issued army bikes. They were of dubious quality, and most of them broke down fairly quickly. The Japanese moved faster than the British anticipated, but that happened virtually everywhere, perhaps most notably (besides Malaya) during the fall of Moulmein. Personally I think bikes were only a marginal part of the Japanese success. Anyway, bikes make for nice pictures:    
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
You're right, but the fall of Singapore was a tremendous moment of national humiliation, and the images of Japanese men cycling into what was supposed to be an impregnable fortress (from the sea only, it turns out) really became iconic and heaped the humiliation on yet further. It's about the image, not the reality - and the appearance of impotence it gave to the British. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
I hope they had little bells and bulb horns on their bikes to increase the humiliation. *BRRRRING* "In the name of the Emperor, we demand the surrender of this garrison and cession of Singapore to the Empire of Japan." "Well all right then, chaps." *HONKA-HONKA*
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I don't know about German cavalry, but Soviet cavalry was incredibly reluctant to trade their horses for tanks, despite the huge amount of encouragement and prestige surrounding positions associated with mechanisation. Polish, too. The experiences of the 1920 war convinced many diehard cavalry officer types in the upper echelons of the military that the tanks are simply not sufficiently mobile on a strategic scale, while cavalry was seen as essential in exploiting any successful manoeuvres. This was true at the time, but as tanks developed, cavalry did not - they just got armed with AT rifles and turned into a hit-and-run force... which was still 12 brigades large, because at that point the diehards became an ossified husk, clinging tightly to ~mah horsies~.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Seems to be a military truism that the guys in charge are always hard charging towards yesteryears bullshit. Right now we're still advancing in the "The reds can come pouring through the fulda gap" direction. By the time the generals are gearing up towards proper counter-insurgency we'll be fighting moon spiders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Seems to be a military truism that the guys in charge are always hard charging towards yesteryears bullshit. Right now we're still advancing in the "The reds can come pouring through the fulda gap" direction. By the time the generals are gearing up towards proper counter-insurgency we'll be fighting moon spiders. I thought the singular focus on COIN was what cut the F-22 buy at less than 200 units, which, uh, is probably a bit on the low side considering aircraft turnaround times when fighting a war against, say, China or a resurgent Russia. The Littoral Combat Ship also got hit with it, namely that it is supposed to operate in contested littorals, which means it is fairly unsuited to fight in a general fleet engagement. Now the operations in Afghanistan are drawing to a close and support for another intervention in Iraq are low, ISIS or no ISIS. At the same time, Russia is stretching its legs in Europe again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I thought the singular focus on COIN was what cut the F-22 buy at less than 200 units, which, uh, is probably a bit on the low side considering aircraft turnaround times when fighting a war against, say, China or a resurgent Russia. The Littoral Combat Ship also got hit with it, namely that it is supposed to operate in contested littorals, which means it is fairly unsuited to fight in a general fleet engagement. Now the operations in Afghanistan are drawing to a close and support for another intervention in Iraq are low, ISIS or no ISIS. At the same time, Russia is stretching its legs in Europe again. Don't worry, you'll buy 2,500 F-35s, carrying the same number of missiles and twice as many cannon rounds. VVV Well, if Archangel isn't an American, he's a winner in this scenario. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
His country will do no such thing, what with not bring able to keep their EFs flying. Mine however will populate a whole 2(!) squadrons with F-35s and call it an Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Ye of no faith! If anything, equipping more troops with bicycles from the get go would possibly have avoided the deadlock in the west when all gaps found could have been exploited decisively in the first months. Or maybe not but it's a nice thought. Besides, military bicycles kick rear end: FAUXTON posted:I hope they had little bells and bulb horns on their bikes to increase the humiliation. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Wait, that's how you carry your lance on horseback? How does the wind not catch it and cause the rider to lose their balance? How fast do you think these guys are riding?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:How fast do you think these guys are riding?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:No, I mean any breath of air at all. Carrying a pike involves minimizing the effects of that as much as you can. That's where the bracing role of stirrups and saddle come into play. How could a rider actually use their lance in combat if they couldn't even carry it under somewhat inconvenient circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Maybe they use those as seen on tv shake weights as stabilizing handgrips?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Seems to be a military truism that the guys in charge are always hard charging towards yesteryears bullshit. Right now we're still advancing in the "The reds can come pouring through the fulda gap" direction. By the time the generals are gearing up towards proper counter-insurgency we'll be fighting moon spiders. This is the battle I fight all day every day. I wouldn't say that anyone with any wasta is still stuck in the Cold War but they've definitely been seriously molded by OIF/OEF so that seriously influences a lot of thinking. I try hard to be objective/creative but it is very hard to predict the future and even harder to get anyone to agree with you about your predictions so in the end we all wind up being so very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:No, I mean any breath of air at all. Carrying a pike involves minimizing the effects of that as much as you can. I think that's exactly why they're crossing the lance in front of them, to balance out the wind resistance and minimize lateral forces. When on the march, lancers would typically sheathe the lance vertically behind them on the saddle, but of course in combat they'd need to have their weapon unsheathed. Mike Loades speaks briefly about carrying a lance on horseback here. Perhaps you'll have more insight than I do about how that would translate for a light Napoleonic lancer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8bVUvBz6W0&t=810s Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Speaking of lancers: A cool over-produced video of Polish reenactors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YquV9AALtXU I haven't ridden a horse holding a polearm, but based on my experience it seems plausible to just hold it upright, and all the videos I've seen support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Wait, that's how you carry your lance on horseback? How does the wind not catch it and cause the rider to lose their balance? http://www.kavallerieverband.de/wissen/ausbildung/lehrfilme/ Mike Loades is obsessed with horseback archery atm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I hope they had little bells and bulb horns on their bikes to increase the humiliation. "You know, Takeshi, when they said 'we'e gonna fight the British', I imagined more sensha and less jitensha".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Those two images are some of the best things to be posted ITT. There's a great quote from Colonel Tusji Masanobu about the invasion of Malaya. Something to the effect of "not even long-legged Englishmen could not escape our bicycles." Which creates this great mental image of a terrified 6'2" guy from Kent being run down by a 5' tall Japanese guy on a bike... My book are on the other side of the Pacific Ocean atm, but there's a great story I read about an Australian guy on a scooter outrunning a bunch of Japanese soldiers. His platoon was trapped and they needed to get a message out. So the Aussie commandeered a scooter and charged the Japanese headlong. Apparently they were so stunned, they didn't fire a shot and just scrambled out of the way as the lunatic Australian barreled through their lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 04:53
|
|