|
It certainly got this poor bastard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bsDP5DznDQ&t=503s Of course that same tank gets hit by an RPG like ten seconds later. So probably not worth it.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:You wouldn't want them taking on a modern armoured division but they're still a fast and powerful tank when you're facing guerrillas who appear to be limited to RPG's and don't have any really dangerous ATGMs (someone correct me if there are indications to the contrary). As if the rebels were being funded by mysterious and unidentifiable groups of people with great wealth and influence, there's been evidence of rebels in possessions of very modern weapons like RPG-29s. They've also been stealing poo poo from Syrian army bases and defecting soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Hogge Wild, I finally have an answer to your questions. In the 16th century the regimental executioner is authorized to do all the kinds of killing the law requires, and he is not honorable. This leads to problems though, since in the close environment of a military camp it's a huge hassle for there to be one person (and his assistants) whom nobody can touch or live with without pollution. I wonder if perceptions of executioner dishonor changed from the 16th century into the 17th? The Articles of War I've seen do not, as the 16th century ones do, contain parts about how you're forbidden from mistreating the regimental executioner, nor does this admonition appear in any of the permission slips that free companies carry which allow them to retain executioners from whatever city they're near when they need one. (A free company is a company that is not legally attached to a regiment, so they don't have any of the regimental officers except the Obrist, which is the dude who leads them. So no executioner. When you fight they just join up with whatever regiment is there.) On the other hand, given that there are nomadic ethnic groups with pretty strict taboos about touching certain things, eating certain foods, etc., it may not have been so difficult as to force mercenaries to stop bagging on these people. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:As if the rebels were being funded by mysterious and unidentifiable groups of people with great wealth and influence, there's been evidence of rebels in possessions of very modern weapons like RPG-29s. There's many videos and photographs showing the Syrian rebels with modern weapons. Not only RPG-29s, but even TOW-style ATGMs (there's a video of one being used to hit a parked plane). If the war was as simple as "Rag-tag rebel band is inferior to established military", then every war like that would have ended ages ago. In practice, the FSA has a massive number of militia and potential recruits (as of December 2013 they were estimated at 40,000-50,000) and has been quite blatantly supported by various nations. ISIL has also joined the fight as a third side, which complicates matters. The Syrian government has also suffered from defecting soldiers, in some cases delivering their vehicles to the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
How often was this executioner of yours working? Did he simply have less people to execute in the 17th century?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
So when reading I see castle keeps and city bastions mentioned a fair amount, but I never seem to remember them doing that much good. Usually it's off handedly mentioned as the place the few defenders made a desperate last stand before all being killed at the conclusion of a successful siege, but it seems like if people kept building them, they had to have had a use. So does anyone know of a siege of a city or castle where the final strong point was a decisive factor in the victory of the defenders?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How often was this executioner of yours working? Did he simply have less people to execute in the 17th century? Ed: "To pay well and hang well makes a good soldier." English military proverb from around this time. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There's many videos and photographs showing the Syrian rebels with modern weapons. Not only RPG-29s, but even TOW-style ATGMs (there's a video of one being used to hit a parked plane). If the war was as simple as "Rag-tag rebel band is inferior to established military", then every war like that would have ended ages ago. In practice, the FSA has a massive number of militia and potential recruits (as of December 2013 they were estimated at 40,000-50,000) and has been quite blatantly supported by various nations. ISIL has also joined the fight as a third side, which complicates matters. The Syrian government has also suffered from defecting soldiers, in some cases delivering their vehicles to the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Don't think that anyone was actually fighting from the top of the tank, unless you have sources that say otherwise. Yes, they were fighting from the tank. Baryatinskiy's book on Lend Lease vehicles recalls the so called "broom" tactic, where submachinegunners would "sweep" any place that looked like it could hide enemy infantry from ~100-150 meters, which was longer than the effective range of a Panzerfaust. Shermans were preferable for this task to T-34s, since they wouldn't shake as much and calmed down quicker on short stops. Also here's a bunch of tank tactics for fighting in the city, along with some examples: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/05/soviet-tank-tactics-1945.html The Berlin repositories are bursting with tactics documents like this one, but most of them are more or less the same in terms of what they describe. Don't get flanked, always keep an eye out for snipers or Panzerfausts, keep track of your units and make sure they don't get lost or end up running into someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There's many videos and photographs showing the Syrian rebels with modern weapons. Not only RPG-29s, but even TOW-style ATGMs (there's a video of one being used to hit a parked plane). If the war was as simple as "Rag-tag rebel band is inferior to established military", then every war like that would have ended ages ago. In practice, the FSA has a massive number of militia and potential recruits (as of December 2013 they were estimated at 40,000-50,000) and has been quite blatantly supported by various nations. ISIL has also joined the fight as a third side, which complicates matters. The Syrian government has also suffered from defecting soldiers, in some cases delivering their vehicles to the rebels. Okay, fair enough. I didn't realise it had gotten to the point where it isn't particularly lopsided anymore. Does that mean the rebels/ISIL theoretically have armour?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Okay, fair enough. I didn't realise it had gotten to the point where it isn't particularly lopsided anymore. Does that mean the rebels/ISIL theoretically have armour? Not theoretically. Confirmed to have tanks. http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2012/07/first-video-evidence-of-free-syrian.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Okay, fair enough. I didn't realise it had gotten to the point where it isn't particularly lopsided anymore. Does that mean the rebels/ISIL theoretically have armour? We know they have armor. Various Russian tanks have been surrendered by defectors or captured from the Syrian Army and have been used in combat. http://brown-moses.blogspot.kr/2012/08/first-video-evidence-of-tank-on-tank.html The IS also got a hold of several M1 Abrams tanks they took from the Iraqi Army. It's unclear whether or not they've been able to get them operational or to keep them running.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
I was under the impression that their M1s would eventually become non operational because they don't have access to the stuff needed to maintain them. Admittedly I heard this from threads in GiP, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:I was under the impression that their M1s would eventually become non operational because they don't have access to the stuff needed to maintain them. Admittedly I heard this from threads in GiP, so... How much racism did you have to wade through to hear that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
How many things can you shake a poleaxe at? VVV It... it was a 'more than you can shake a stick at' joke. 
Malachite_Dragon fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:How many things can you shake a poleaxe at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It's not entirely clear how many "sides" there are in Syria right now. Al Queda and ISIL are both known to be operating there (for obvious reasons in the last case) and we can't rule out independent militias working towards the same anti-Assad goal, but without co-operation. Heck, there could even be Russian "militias" in the area backing Assad and and US OGA teams supporting <other group> and we'd have a hard time proving it. Syria is kind of a free for all. Or, if you're as racist as, say, regular Funker530 reader, it's glorious secular Assad government against Muslim Terrorists that are supported by Jews/Obama/Jewbama.  Though this might not be an isolated American thing: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Or, if you're as racist as, say, regular Funker530 reader, it's glorious secular Assad government against Muslim Terrorists that are supported by Jews/Obama/Jewbama.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Wasn't there a thing where people were worried about Mujahideen having stingers that were donated to fight the soviets with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Eej posted:Everyone being hyped to see the ISU-152 take out a Panther getting pelted by glass shards after the shot is the best What was the name of this man? I've read it a while ago when the site had a different look and was baffled that he tells of all the local onlookers around that were watching the fighting like it's a soccer game. When the SU152 fired, they all scattered, because it was so loud and the concussion of the blast was massive. Or was it another man's story? I was walking by the place where they collapsed the building for the last 6 years almost daily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What was the name of this man? I've read it a while ago when the site had a different look and was baffled that he tells of all the local onlookers around that were watching the fighting like it's a soccer game. When the SU152 fired, they all scattered, because it was so loud and the concussion of the blast was massive. Or was it another man's story? I was walking by the place where they collapsed the building for the last 6 years almost daily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Sadly there's a kernel of truth to that. The chances of the USA not funding ISIL before they kicked off in Iraq is basically zero. Proxy wars seem to always bite the sponsors in the rear end sooner or later. How the gently caress do you even blame Obama for that? Some of the groups involved in Bush's Sunni Awakening, who drove out the original AQ in Iraq, have probably gone over to ISIS as well. Not all, most are probably neutral, but this is a constantly shifting web of alliances dominated by some top dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
ThanksDmitriy Loza posted:In the war medicine worked well, but there were cases for which the medics could do nothing except hang their head! Fellows, Romania at that time was simply the venereal cesspool of all of Europe! We had a saying: "If you have 100 Lei (Romanian currency) you may sleep with a queen!" When some German POWs fell into our hands, their pockets were full of prophylactics, as many as 5-10. Our political officers made a big deal out of this "Look at this! They have these so they can rape our women!" But the Germans were smarter than we were and understood what venereal disease could do to an army. If only our own medics had warned us about these diseases! Even though we passed through Romania quickly, we had a terrible outbreak of venereal disease in our units. Our army had two hospitals: one for surgical cases and the other for light wounds. They were forced to open a venereal section, even though it was not provided for in the table of organization and equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Vague WW2 question: I've read somewhere that a common German tactic when defending was to fall back quickly, wait for the attackers to occupy their position and then hit them with pre-sighted arty and counterattack. My question is: is there a name for this procedure? Was it something particularly innovative about this or was it something common to all sides?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
I know I am showing my ignorance here, but apart from their treaty with Belgium why did the UK enter World War 1 so early? I imagine they'd have a lot to gain from having France taken down several notches, being a rival colonial superpower with a rich history of fighting the British and decapitating monarchs, while Germany had an almost-english royal family. Would it not have been more advantageous for them to sit on the sidelines, let the continent do it's thing while it kept its fighting force in good shape, then attempt to broker a peace between both parties backed up by a threat to enter the war?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Germany was quickly expanding their navy, which was seen as a big threat by the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:I've always liked how he's helpfully labelled "Russian", just in case the point wasn't totally clear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Alris posted:I know I am showing my ignorance here, but apart from their treaty with Belgium why did the UK enter World War 1 so early? I imagine they'd have a lot to gain from having France taken down several notches, being a rival colonial superpower with a rich history of fighting the British and decapitating monarchs, while Germany had an almost-english royal family. Would it not have been more advantageous for them to sit on the sidelines, let the continent do it's thing while it kept its fighting force in good shape, then attempt to broker a peace between both parties backed up by a threat to enter the war? On a large scale, Britain's foreign policy for the last century or so has been to prevent any one continental European power from ever gaining hegemony over Europe. Germany, an amalgamation of a bunch of smaller Germanic states, was suddenly a powerhouse and on the up-and-up. Britain wanted to keep some kind of balance of power going between France and Germany. On a smaller scale, violating Belgian neutrality was a big deal. You had a relatively weak country get invaded and occupied, and all of its industrial outputs plundered. This wasn't a clean war, there were plenty of the usual war crimes done any time every time an occupying power interacts with a civilian populace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
Alris posted:I know I am showing my ignorance here, but apart from their treaty with Belgium why did the UK enter World War 1 so early? I imagine they'd have a lot to gain from having France taken down several notches, being a rival colonial superpower with a rich history of fighting the British and decapitating monarchs, while Germany had an almost-english royal family. Would it not have been more advantageous for them to sit on the sidelines, let the continent do it's thing while it kept its fighting force in good shape, then attempt to broker a peace between both parties backed up by a threat to enter the war? It's worth noting that the almost-English Kaiser had a lifelong habit of jamming his foot directly into his mouth, particularly when speaking to his English relatives. Family feeling can work just as strongly against you as for (though I'd argue that family relations probably had very little to do with Great Power strategy in the run up to WW1.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:40
|
|
Alris posted:I know I am showing my ignorance here, but apart from their treaty with Belgium why did the UK enter World War 1 so early? You already answered your own question. The low countries have been dragging Britain into messy continental entanglements for a long time. It was already traditional by 1914. That and gently caress those uppity Germans and their imperial/naval ambitions.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
My favourite one is the Canadian one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Hogge Wild, I finally have an answer to your questions. In the 16th century the regimental executioner is authorized to do all the kinds of killing the law requires, and he is not honorable. This leads to problems though, since in the close environment of a military camp it's a huge hassle for there to be one person (and his assistants) whom nobody can touch or live with without pollution. Thanks! It's interesting how different far-flung cultures have created an untouchable caste. Were the Regimental Executioners paid a salary or were they paid a fixed piece rate? Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Azran posted:My favourite one is the Canadian one. He looks like Pope Benedict cosplaying as the Serbian accordion dude from that "remove kebab" meme
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
If you are curious about the whole weird origin story of ISIS and why they are sort of the product of our twisted messed up modern world, I'd just like to quickly plug the Adam Curtis documentary Bitter Lake which is on the iPlayer right now. It is 2 hours long and slightly surreal. Bring popcorn.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
psst It's also on youtube
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
I really like Adam Curtis, but he does make a lot of unsupported assertions; his main form of argument is to make a lot of tenuously stringed together rhetorical arguments: 'what if....? And what if....?'. I think you owe it to yourself to learn more about it in addition to Bitter Lake and not accept it at face value.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
It still is a pretty entertaining documentary of course, but it got me asking questions and digging deeper for myself which makes up for some of the flaws. My one issue with it is that it might have worked better as a mini series with an hour dedicated to each thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:On a large scale, Britain's foreign policy for the last century or so has been to prevent any one continental European power from ever gaining hegemony over Europe. Germany, an amalgamation of a bunch of smaller Germanic states, was suddenly a powerhouse and on the up-and-up. Britain wanted to keep some kind of balance of power going between France and Germany. Belgium is also regarded by Britain as the ideal place to launch an attack from, so Germany taking it seems extra menacing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:How the gently caress do you even blame Obama for that? Some of the groups involved in Bush's Sunni Awakening, who drove out the original AQ in Iraq, have probably gone over to ISIS as well. Not all, most are probably neutral, but this is a constantly shifting web of alliances dominated by some top dogs. It's generally safe to say that at any given moment every powerful nation in the world is giving some money or guns to some dickheads it shouldn't really give money or guns to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:39 |
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It still is a pretty entertaining documentary of course, but it got me asking questions and digging deeper for myself which makes up for some of the flaws. Adam Curtis has never been a super in depth person, he likes to sketch a big image about major trends about the neoliberal horrorscape of modern reality. I think he identifies major trends quite well in an interesting and arresting way, but he's a bit weaker when it comes to knitting these things together or about specific historical events.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:42
|
|