|
Groda posted:On my first trip to Krakow, I followed a group of German pensioners into Wawel Cathedral. Before I was kicked out for not being German and pensioner, we came up to a coffin with "Sigmund Wasa" (or something). I lived in Sweden and I got to see my first member of the House of Vasa on accident. His mom is buried in Uppsala cathedral if you're ever there. There's a nice mural above the grave with a side by side of Krakow and Stockholm. The artist tried his best to make Stockholm not look completely insignificant in comparison (lol).
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wasn't the SU-152 absolutely lethal against armour despite having a really slow gun? Related news to this: I've been reading a lot about AirLand battle stuff the last few weeks and a big part of that is going through the operational concepts and plans for the various formations in Europe at the time. One of the interesting things I've been reading is on their use of the 109s as direct fire anti tank platforms using 155mm HE. I knew this was a capability of the 109 but I didn't think it was much thought of or employed; I was really surprised at how extensive the plans were to use it. I'm not sure how well this would have worked in practice as the targeting was literally just....looking and spitballing, but man if they got a direct hit that'd be a thing to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Related news to this: Yeah, 155mm HE is really powerful and can wreck tanks. The trouble is, particularly in WW2, they weren't usually deployed in vehicles that would allow them to get into direct fire range. Most heavy howitzers of that period had a good anti-tank capability, but the crews, gunners, and transport simply wasn't meant to work that way. Most powers during the war, once they realized anti-tank guns would need to get heavier and heavier to be effective tried to find ways to put them on some kind of vehicle to give them some kind of tactical mobility. (Trigger Warning: Tank Destroyer chat) US towed tank destroyer units were almost worthless because they weren't integrated with the line units and the 76mm towed gun was really hard to move around so they just ended up being used as ghetto howitzers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Surely AP shells can do something against pillboxes, at least. Yes, although there are special "semi-AP" concrete piercing shells, that are a middle ground between the penetrating power of an AP shell and the explosive load of an HE shell. However, the point of these shells is to tear apart the concrete enough for regular HE to become effective, so if the AP doesn't pierce all the way through the fortification, I don't think it will be of that much use. Slavvy posted:Wasn't the SU-152 absolutely lethal against armour despite having a really slow gun? Very. Tias posted:No kidding, I'm in Denmark and it's the same. It seems to be directly correlated with anti-arab racism and islamophobia in the news and folketinget When Kursk hit and the Germans sent in all these newfangled super-armoured wonderweapons, the SU-152 was the only thing on a self propelled chassis that could still chew them up and spit them out. There weren't very many of them by that time, though, so most of these new tanks had to be dealt with in other ways. It's also pretty interesting how the Ferdinand spurred the design of huge 152 mm guns with hilariously high shell velocities, since the Soviets were afraid the Germans would manufacture lots of them, even though most Ferdinands fell to mines and infantry at Kursk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It's also pretty interesting how the Ferdinand spurred the design of huge 152 mm guns with hilariously high shell velocities, since the Soviets were afraid the Germans would manufacture lots of them, even though most Ferdinands fell to mines and infantry at Kursk. I didn't think the Soviets had serious anti-tank infantry weapons. Is it limpet mines or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Morholt posted:He means Sweden, presumably. Actually I'm fairly sure they're talking about his son, Wladyslaw IV. Sigismund was the King of Poland, but he was never the Prince of Poland, as he was elected. His son, meanwhile, technically also got elected, but as he was Sigismund's son and very popular with the Poles, it was a foregone conclusion. Despite the throne not being legally hereditary, he was still titled a Prince of Poland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I didn't think the Soviets had serious anti-tank infantry weapons. Is it limpet mines or something else? Molotovs and AT-grenades. Not as bad as you'd think, given that the Ferdinand was a limited traverse tank destroyer, without even a single machine gun. A Ferdinand that has been immobilised is basically harmless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I didn't think the Soviets had serious anti-tank infantry weapons. Is it limpet mines or something else? The Soviets used AT grenades a lot, as well as captured panzerfausts when they could find them. They kept anti-tank rifles throughout the war, too, though they were at least by TO&E standards relegated to the second line. These same TO&E charts suggested that all the first-line riflemen would have semi-automatic rifles(SVTs). They tried bazookas but found they couldn't service them adequately in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I didn't think the Soviets had serious anti-tank infantry weapons. Is it limpet mines or something else? Ferdinands were destroyed chiefly by mines and incendiary fluid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I learned a thing today. One secondary source, when discussing conflicts between the military and civilians and between different military groups, made the excellent point that there's no way to tell the difference between officers and common soldiers at a glance in this period (unless the officer happens to be holding his Kurtzwaffe). A poor officer looks exactly like a common soldier, and even the richer officers, while they might be typed immediately as "an officer," won't be recognized by people outside their own company or maybe regiment. Nevertheless, dudes who...erm, have the kind of personality that this job both attracts and fosters...would be likely to take offense if not given the proper respect. So as soon as they go outside the bubble of people they know by sight the chance that they'll get into fights with people for "disrespecting their office" goes way up, simply because strangers won't know what that office is. (Or, in the case of civilians, why they should give a poo poo.)
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
I assume civilians stayed the gently caress away from soldiers, just in case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
my dad posted:I assume civilians stayed the gently caress away from soldiers, just in case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Were these fights typically to the death?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Animal posted:Were these fights typically to the death? Edit: Also, since fights that don't end in death sometimes don't end up in court they're recorded less. Turns out an armed society is not a polite society HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:For all sorts of reasons, not just that one There are, of course, recorded instances of soldiers getting shanked by villagers if they got caught alone throughout the ages in reprisal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Turns out an armed society is not a polite society Everyone has to be extremely polite when being rude results in stab wounds. There have been studies into Southern and Northern culture in the U.S. that found Southerners are much more polite and much more likely to react violently when provoked, your officers sound like an even more extreme case of that. Did they tend to challenge each other to formal duels, or did they just pull out the nearest weapon and attack? Chamale fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Lookit them 'burgs: http://michellevaughan.net/gifs
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Philip IV looks like Jon Heder 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Everyone has to be extreme polite when being rude results in stab wounds. There have been studies into Southern and Northern culture in the U.S. that found Southerners are much more polite and much more likely to react violently when provoked, your officers sound like an even more extreme case of that. Did they tend to challenge each other to formal duels, or did they just pull out the nearest weapon and attack? I think this is also a function of power disparities. Two white southerners will try not to escalate because either one of them can die, and so therefore remain polite. A 30 years war soldier can be as impolite as he likes, because he and his friends can escalate by burning down the village. You'd see the same dynamic in a white southerner and a black southerner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Everyone is rude as gently caress in places with blood feud, but that's because there's a nuclear standoff of sorts between people involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Everyone has to be extremely polite when being rude results in stab wounds. There have been studies into Southern and Northern culture in the U.S. that found Southerners are much more polite and much more likely to react violently when provoked, your officers sound like an even more extreme case of that. Did they tend to challenge each other to formal duels, or did they just pull out the nearest weapon and attack? I've seen mentions of duels twice, both somewhat abortive: in the first case, a pair of dudes were going to fight each other with swords and bucklers while their friends were sneaking around behind them trying to figure out a way to make them stop without embarrassing themselves. In the second case an officer who served the Margrave of Hesse really really wanted to duel this other officer but would not have been allowed to. (He wrote "If you were not my paymaster, I would duel this man," which should make us pause when we oppose "mercenary" motivations to "loyalty," since that guy took his obligations seriously.) I don't know if that was because the Margrave had forbidden dueling in his army or if it was because the letter writer had just accused the other officer of horse theft, which is dishonorable, and he would have dishonored himself by calling him out. These are all personal conflicts, which is different from people singling each other out for one-on-one fights during a battle or siege. Which observers say still happened, even this late. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Turns out an armed society is not a polite society The sister speaks the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:30
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I've seen ad hoc combats much more frequently than formal duels. There are rules (don't fight indoors, if two guys are fighting you can yell at them to stop but you can't get involved physically), but my guys seem to be even more casual about it than the working-class Dutch knife fighters studied by Peter Spierenburg. Then again, those guys' identity seems to have been bound up in being knife fighters while my subjects don't seem to go out of their way to be known as duelists. Like, there's a whole knife fighting subculture in 17th century working class Amsterdam. 1 on 1 fights still happen now. Clifford M Woolrich Navy Cross citation posted:The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Corporal Clifford M. Wooldridge, United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as Vehicle Commander, Combined Anti-Armor Platoon White, Weapons Company, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, Regimental Combat Team 2, FIRST Marine Division (Forward), I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) Afghanistan, on 18 June 2010 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. When their mounted patrol came under intense enemy fire, Corporal Wooldridge and his squad dismounted and maneuvered on the suspected enemy location. Spotting a group of fifteen enemy fighters preparing an ambush, Corporal Wooldridge led one of his fire teams across open ground to flank the enemy, killing or wounding at least eight and forcing the rest to scatter. As he held security alone to cover his fire team's withdrawal, he heard voices from behind an adjacent wall. Boldly rushing around the corner, he came face-to-face with two enemy fighters at close range, killing both of them with his M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon. As he crouched back behind the wall to reload, he saw the barrel of an enemy machine gun appear from around the wall. Without hesitation, he dropped his empty weapon and seized the machine gun barrel. He overwhelmed the enemy fighter in hand-to-hand combat, killing him with several blows to the head with the enemy's own machine gun. His audacious and fearless actions thwarted the enemy attack on his platoon. By his bold and decisive leadership, undaunted courage under fire, and total dedication to duty, Corporal Wooldridge reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service. Dude beat a man to death with his own machinegun.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I think this is also a function of power disparities. Two white southerners will try not to escalate because either one of them can die, and so therefore remain polite. A 30 years war soldier can be as impolite as he likes, because he and his friends can escalate by burning down the village. I read the same article that study was linked from. The thing about extreme politeness is that there needs to be some kind of consequence to the politeness being violated, otherwise there's little incentive to maintain it against all other desires. The typical result is that you end up with people being harshly punished -- sometimes through violence -- for any offense. Every slight becomes a grievous insult that must be avenged. The other issue is that societies that try to emphasize always turning the other cheek and remaining perfectly nice do little to actually prevent the other person from being angry; it just tells them that it's impolite to act on it. So whereas you or I would be more likely to fling back any insults as we receive them, someone raised on "Southern Hospitality" in a study exactly on this subject would remain unflappably calm....until reaching their breaking point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
In societies like this, people who are unable or unwilling to play along with these customs end up hurting themselves quite a bit--like Wallenstein, who would get into screaming arguments with his coworkers, in a world where you would make a serious enemy for life if you use the wrong salutation on your letters to him. He probably forgot what he called people as soon as the arguments were over...but they didn't. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Dude beat a man to death with his own machinegun. That's not how you use a machine gun 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Welp, it's that time of year again.One of Hegel's students posted:During the holocaust the German people accepted ludacris statements about Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Ludacris posted:It's time to saddle up the Tontos cause I'm the Lone Ranger 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
And it's objectively incorrect that a Nazi would accept that. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Welp, it's that time of year again. Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's not how you use a machine gun I think there was a Gurkha who beat a Talib with either an MG or MG tripod. Because, you know, shooting and kukri-ing them isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Welp, it's that time of year again. Man are they going to be sad when they find out a lot of history is full of people accepting ludicrous statements about the Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Welp, it's that time of year again. Shabbat (ooh ooh)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's not how you use a machine gun It would be rude to use ammo that's not yours. Someone signed for that
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Dumb spitball question: who was the most inept Napoleonic marshal?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Dumb spitball question: who was the most inept Napoleonic marshal? Tough question. Napoleon generally picked pretty competent people, even if some of them were pretty lovely human beings, and few stood out as terrible generals. I'll have to go with a draw between Michel Ney and Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. Ney was just way too impulsive and indecisive. He did okay in the earlier parts of the war, but managed to score huge fuckups in all major battles of the Hundred Days. At Ligny/Quatre-Bras, he snatched a draw from the jaws of victory by pulling away a corps that was supposed to be encircling the enemy. At Waterloo, he tried to make up for it far too hard: charged right into a trap, failed to actually do anything with captured artillery, and then had to retreat. When defeat was looming, Ney's response was to try and get himself killed in a suicide charge, but he failed at that too and instead got a bunch of his men slaughtered for no reason. In the end, his bad political decisions ("yay Napoleon! no, wait, gently caress Napoleon, vive le roi! oh boy Napoleon has returned, I'll kill him-- no wait, vive l'Empereur!") got him executed so he could have just waited. Bernadotte, on the other hand, was on the opposite end of the spectrum and acquired a reputation as a coward and a blowhard. At Jena & Auerstaedt he got close enough to be aware of the battle, and proceeded to sit there with his thumb up his rear end, leaving Davout all alone to kick the Prussians' rear end despite bad odds (not that Davout needed help being amazing). At Wagram he first tried to get all the glory for victory for his terrible Saxon troops despite not doing all that much, then withdrew overnight without informing Napoleon, leaving part of the French army out of position. On the second day as soon as he engaged the enemy he ran the gently caress away, and IIRC this made him the only Napoleonic marshal to actually get fired. He was pretty good at politics though, and managed to found Sweden's current ruling dynasty. Edit: Honorable mention goes to Soult for screwing up the Spanish campaign by being a greedy, vindictive shithead. However, nobody can deny that he was an excellent field commander, so that puts him out of the running for "most inept". Guildencrantz fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:At Wagram he first tried to get all the glory for victory for his terrible Saxon troops despite not doing all that much, Care to expand on how and why Saxon(ian?) troops were lovely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Saxon cavalrymen were supposed to have been excellent, I'm not sure it applied to the other service arms.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Let me guess, speakers of modern German: you no longer use the cool new word I just learned: rottiren, "to join into Rotten." (These are the same people who say entleiben for "kill." "De-life.")
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Currently reading a very short book called 'The Longest Afternoon: The 400 Men Who Decided the Battle of Waterloo' by Brendan Simms, about La Haye Saint. I have to say, the depiction of the KGL is very interesting. It really did become a fully hybridised version of a British and German military force - not fully one or the other.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 13:35
|
|