|
HEY GAL posted:Edit: Googled "pike drill" to try to find some nice little pen-and-ink drawings from the 1670s or something that showed what I was talking about, did not find them, did find this: "I can get it up if I want to, babe, I swear!"
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The rate at which that poo poo happens is way dependent on the local geology too. The last time that I was in Berlin on research I saw a great show on TV that explained how Berlin's local geology made it perfect for trapping air-dropped bombs which is why the place is still such a delightful gently caress you to UXO specialists. I think it was right around when the guy who had been heading Berlin's in-house UXO team retired after a half-century career. Don't forget that there's an entire forest "park" made off-limits to everyone because it was seeded with land mines made of glass during WWII. I think there's an additional reason they can't be snooped out like the composition of the explosive is unknown or unrecorded so they can't be traced chemically either. War.  On the upside, I bet the forest is recovering very nicely due to the lack of human presence, a la the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:On the upside, I bet the forest is recovering very nicely due to the lack of human presence, a la the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Supposedly this is happening with the DMZ in Korea. It's not safe to cut trees there. EDIT: OK that's not entirely related, but in this context I had to bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:In fairness, they do tend to disappear as the 17th century progresses. If you're in Ireland you ditch the breastplate as soon as you leave town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Chamale posted:French cuirassiers in plate armour, 1914: This reminds me of something I've been wondering about for a while-- where's a good place to find images of the uniforms and equipment of the early war, before all the stuff we associate with iconic WWI soldiers (stalhelms, brodie helmets, etc.) came into use?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:This reminds me of something I've been wondering about for a while-- where's a good place to find images of the uniforms and equipment of the early war, before all the stuff we associate with iconic WWI soldiers (stalhelms, brodie helmets, etc.) came into use? Here's a site with an inordinate fondness for Imperial German headwear: http://www.kaisersbunker.com/pt/
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
For all your pickelhaube and pickelhaube accessories. Also, fun fact. Russian Infantry experimented with such hats in the mid 19th century as well. Hilariously, like the over the top bearskins and Albert model shako of the British soldiers in the Crimean war they were discarded fast and replaced with a simple peaked forage cap. That war was a uniform style death sentence.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also, fun fact. Russian Infantry experimented with such hats in the mid 19th century as well. Hilariously, like the over the top bearskins and Albert model shako of the British soldiers in the Crimean war they were discarded fast and replaced with a simple peaked forage cap. That war was a uniform style death sentence. "In war, the first casualty is fashion."
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
It kind of is, a micro second before the wearer of the uniform gets horribly injured. And in most cases before battlefield treatement of the wounded improved, it kills the wearer as well with infection.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh, I'm pretty far from a US history scholar, but what little I know about that period points to the bougie end of American society at that time having a pretty big hard on for emulating the Victorian English. Anglophilia was the more important tendency socially and culturally (emulating the English theater was a ridiculously huge deal, for example), but for military matters French influence was vastly more important. Of course the French definitely used cuirassiers and so you might still expect to see them on American Civil War battlefields, but my guess would be their non-appearance was basically an manufacturing and procurement issue. The antebellum US Army was mostly infantry and engineers in frontier stations, so what cavalry they had was almost exclusively light horse or dragoons for scouting and skirmishing purposes. A (theoretically) functional cuirass is a specialty item, for which there would have been no demand, so there probably wasn't a manufacturing base for pumping them out in the numbers necessary to raise units of them. Comparatively, a regiment of zouaves just needs a lot of funny hats and red pants. Likewise for their mounts. Heavy cavalry demands a particular kind of horse that is rather expensive to breed and keep, and nobody needed them--they needed tough ponies for patrols, saddle horses for general transport, and draft horses for hauling. There probably wasn't a breeding stock of the kind of latter-day destrier that a cuirassier wants and needs, certainly not in the numbers they would have need for mounts and remounts. There's also the matter of training for the cuirassiers themselves. Heavy cavalry really requires a whole infrastructure and military tradition which the Americans had never really developed prior to the ACW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:If you're in Ireland you ditch the breastplate as soon as you leave town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Or cut the ends of your pikes. Meanwhile, the musketeers don't wad. It's a constant dance between lazy fuckers and any authority figure that happens to swing into view. Funnily enough in Ireland during the War of the Three Kingdoms shortening of pikes isn't reported as a problem in the Irish provincial armies but is an endemic one in the Scottish and English armies. In the 1600's one English captain wrote to his superiors asking them to stop sending him muskets, as he considered them only useful for garrison duty (the lighter caliver is what he wanted much more of). One of the interesting things about the Irish wars of the 16th/17th century is that the English and Irish forces trended towards an equilibrium of modern pike and shot tactics mixed with traditional Irish light infantry tactics. Throughout the 16th century the English had never fielded formations of swordsmen "in the Spanish style", but their armies operating in Ireland employed larger and larger numbers of Irish mercenary swordsmen/calivermen (often led by experienced English or Anglo-Irish officers) as the war dragged on. Late in the war there are episodes of English regiments mistaking approaching Irish troops as friendlies and stories of English troops casting off their clothes and shoes and jumping into bogs to chase off Irish skirmishers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Napoleon question - there's a fairly famous story about the Austrians having a big old elaborate plan for every battle they'd wage against him - except it didn't plan for the possibility of Napoleon flanking them, which they found to be an absolutely ungentlemanly way to kick their rear end. Quite uncouth, really. That's sounds like a story, more than anything... but on the other hand, we are talking about the Austrians . So, true/false?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Almost unquestionably bullshit. The Austrians had a lot of issues but they weren't loving imbeciles. The Hofkriegsrat was outdated but still a somewhat effective staff that had a fairly firm grasp of strategy, even if they struggled to execute effectively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Question most likely for Ensign but any Russian can answer. In the soviet union for WW2 were units segregated by ethnicity(ukranian,russian,tatar etc.), regionally, or anyone can be anywhere? Like a tatar being in a unit around moscow or something or likewise a muscovite(?) being in siberia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
No, there was no segregation. Here are some stats: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/demographics.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
On one hand I would assume they were at least linguistically contiguous to some level but this is the RKKA we're talking about. I hope someone can give a big-post answer  E: well there's a link at least E2: gently caress me, I'd hate to be under an officer who has planted their flag upon the wind-scoured intellectual summit of sixth grade. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:08
|
|
Xander77 posted:Napoleon question - there's a fairly famous story about the Austrians having a big old elaborate plan for every battle they'd wage against him - except it didn't plan for the possibility of Napoleon flanking them, which they found to be an absolutely ungentlemanly way to kick their rear end. Quite uncouth, really. I swear this thing comes from that old PBS documentary about Napoleon and weirdly seems to hang about, i see it popping up all the time.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:On one hand I would assume they were at least linguistically contiguous to some level but this is the RKKA we're talking about. I hope someone can give a big-post answer They were linguistically contiguous, everyone spoke Russian. A lot of commanders that were posted in areas where another language was spoken picked it up pretty quickly, but the official correspondence was all in Russian. Slavic languages are also similar enough that you can order people around and they will understand you without specifically speaking the same one as them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:E2: gently caress me, I'd hate to be under an officer who has planted their flag upon the wind-scoured intellectual summit of sixth grade. (Although the counter-examples are interesting--not only had Spinola gone to college, for instance, he was a math major. Genoese finance family. Braudel said that Genoa basically ruled the world while it was part of the Spanish Empire but nobody really noticed since while Spain did it with armies Genoa did it with high finance) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Question most likely for Ensign but any Russian can answer. ... SeanBeansShako posted:I swear this thing comes from that old PBS documentary about Napoleon and weirdly seems to hang about, i see it popping up all the time. Chillyrabbit posted:Thanks, that was an interesting read. Most other armies in that era seemed to be segregated at least loosely, by region or by race. but its interesting that you could meet a red army Asian soldier in western Europe, even though they most of them are probably in Siberia. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:No, there was no segregation. Here are some stats: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/demographics.html Thanks, that was an interesting read. Most other armies in that era seemed to be segregated at least loosely, by region or by race. but its interesting that you could meet a red army Asian soldier in western Europe, even though they most of them are probably in Siberia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I swear this thing comes from that old PBS documentary about Napoleon and weirdly seems to hang about, i see it popping up all the time. It's probably a reference to Austerlitz, where Napoleon deliberately weakened his right to encourage the Allies to attack there. When they did, he let them advance a long way and get over extended, then came down hard from his left and split their army in two. It was actually a case of them forgetting they could be flanked as they drove ahead. It wasn't just Austrians, though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:They were linguistically contiguous, everyone spoke Russian. A lot of commanders that were posted in areas where another language was spoken picked it up pretty quickly, but the official correspondence was all in Russian. Slavic languages are also similar enough that you can order people around and they will understand you without specifically speaking the same one as them. Oh, okay. I can see written correspondence being a non-issue but thought linguistic differences were more stark. Then again, educating kids in speaking fluent Russian was probably a major objective of the party for obvious reasons (I.e. those bitchin' propaganda posters), regardless of whether they were Ukrainian or Lithuanian or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Units that were recruited in one spot / composed of one ethnicity were established / abolished / re-established a few times in the Red Army. I believe they were finally abolished in the 30's, and after WWII the Red Army specifically pursued a policy of mixed units (and, if you're into paranoia, of sending each recruit as far from home as possible). However! During WWII, you'd often have to raise units however and whenever you can, so you would get your ethnically homogenous units occasionally (as well as unfortunate replays of the British "Pals" units) Osprey book on elite units of the USSR has a quote how the internal troops are never from the same district where they stationed, and that various near Asians are useful since they're cruel and hate Russians (and, presumably, all other peoples with vested interest in not being part of the USSR). Soviets were racist, to boot. Article on ACW vests posted:As advertised the vest did a very good job of protecting soldiers, but under some circumstances the vest did not perform as well. Gun fired at close range still proved deadly. Even if the bullet did not penetrate the vest, the impact from the bullet was sometimes fatal. The vest offered no protection again artillery that delivers larger projectiles. Sooo, just like modern day vests, really? HEY GAL posted:Or cut the ends of your pikes. Meanwhile, the musketeers don't wad. It's a constant dance between lazy fuckers and any authority figure that happens to swing into view. What the hell? Why does that pike cutting/cuirass dropping thing happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What the hell? Why does that pike cutting/cuirass dropping thing happen? Soldiers are a lazy bunch and won't hesitate to save a pound that they'd otherwise have to carry. It might even make the pike plain easier to carry since it has less length to flex and wave about. E: and for most of history the soldier was more likely to die from disease than end up getting hurt by dumping their gear. Well, not really since all soldiers dump something, and some do make it to battle.. Arrath fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Napoleon question - there's a fairly famous story about the Austrians having a big old elaborate plan for every battle they'd wage against him - except it didn't plan for the possibility of Napoleon flanking them, which they found to be an absolutely ungentlemanly way to kick their rear end. Quite uncouth, really. Maybe you would like Leuthen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen Big Austrian prince faces Frederick the Great and decides that he won't get himself flanked, no sir. He flattens his army until his frontline is 4 miles long... and lets Big Freddy flank him anyways. Chillyrabbit posted:Thanks, that was an interesting read. Most other armies in that era seemed to be segregated at least loosely, by region or by race. but its interesting that you could meet a red army Asian soldier in western Europe, even though they most of them are probably in Siberia. For what it's worth, the US army was integrated. Aside from the Japanese and African-Americans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What the hell? Why does that pike cutting/cuirass dropping thing happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:E2: gently caress me, I'd hate to be under an officer who has planted their flag upon the wind-scoured intellectual summit of sixth grade. Are you kidding me? The soviets did a lot of things horribly, tragically wrong and doubly so when you start talking about Stalin and his little ego trips and the consolidation of power around him, but education was one of those things where they pulled off a very no bullshit miracle. The 1897 census recorded a country-wide literacy rate of 21%, a figure that jumps to 81% by 1939 and 89% if you only count those between 9 and 49 years old. The numbers get even more staggering if you go outside of the cities. In the more rural parts of the east, for example, pre-WW1 literacy was well under 1%. Note that this is probably a pretty loose definition of "literacy." I don't know what their exact standard was, but it's probably safe to say that these newly-literate proletarians weren't reading Tolstoy. That said, they were considered good enough for the government to be able to expect them to go to school, read government pamphlets and propaganda, read simple instructions, and generally participate in a modern military or industrial setting. Chances are that the guy who went to school up through sixth grade is also from the same basic class background as you are and at least appreciates that you are a person like he is, which is a pretty loving huge improvement from what was going on under the Tsars. Double lucky you if he was promoted up from the ranks. He might read Pravda a little slowly and move his mouth while doing it, but he probably knows a lot more about setting up an ambush or laying down interlocking fields fire than some nobleman's 3rd son pulled out of university at Petersburg to win glory for his family in service to Tsar and God.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:E2: gently caress me, I'd hate to be under an officer who has planted their flag upon the wind-scoured intellectual summit of sixth grade. So you wouldn't want to serve under Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Pompey Magnus, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Charles Martel, King Arthur, or Alfred the Great? Interesting. EDIT: OK, I can understand not wanting to serve under William the Conqueror. Pourin' out a 40 for my buddy Harold Godwinson. gently caress the Norman Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Osprey book on elite units of the USSR has a quote how the internal troops are never from the same district where they stationed, and that various near Asians are useful since they're cruel and hate Russians (and, presumably, all other peoples with vested interest in not being part of the USSR). Soviets were racist, to boot. There were some racial based policies in the army, one was refusing to draft from the Caucasus because it wasn't worth the effort. Those guys were really good at avoiding conscription. I've never read anything about them being more cruel, sounds like a very modern thing about demented Islamist hordes led by Ramzan Kadyrov himself roaming the countryside in [area of current conflict].
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hannibal, Would you like to march through the mountains with the smell of elephant poo poo wafting at you the whole time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Alfred the Great? Feh. Man couldn't even read until he was middle aged. More like Alfred the Dunce 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:gently caress the Norman Yolk! Ensign Expendable posted:I've never read anything about them being more cruel, sounds like a very modern thing about demented Islamist hordes led by Ramzan Kadyrov himself roaming the countryside in [area of current conflict].
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:00
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:EDIT: OK, I can understand not wanting to serve under William the Conqueror. Pourin' out a 40 for my buddy Harold Godwinson. gently caress the Norman Yolk! He died a painfully comical death. Pour another out for his horse.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So you wouldn't want to serve under Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Pompey Magnus, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Charles Martel, King Arthur, or Alfred the Great? Interesting. Because low-level officers in the Red Army are no worse than a literal Macedonian king who was homeschooled by Aristotle. I was drawing a comparison to modern grade-school education in the US. According to the article the vast majority of the officers were at least possessing of a secondary if not postsecondary education, it's just that there was a specific segment for 6 years and under which if you're thinking of "intellect of a 13-year old" you'd better hope you got the next Bobby Fischer in charge or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
With the exception of Genghis, all those guys involve too much fuckin' walking everywhere. I think that even under Divine Julius, I'd get sick of walking to and fro over all of France. Genghis at least gets you a horse, even if you're a common schmuck as most of us would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:"intellect of a 13-year old" jng2058 posted:With the exception of Genghis, all those guys involve too much fuckin' walking everywhere. I think that even under Divine Julius, I'd get sick of walking to and fro over all of France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:because that's what formal schooling signifies quote:For instance, education. Most officers are well educated (1907 have 1-6 grades of school, 4080 have 7-9 grades, and 5387 have secondary or post-secondary education) When in the context of "secondary or post-secondary" education as the upper educational tier, I'm imagining grades 1-6 as what would commonly be called grade school or elementary school in the US, which is typically completed by age 10-12. They may not be  but they sure as hell will have some deficiencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:because that's what formal schooling signifies Not if you're in the navy. I'll serve under Spruance, thank you very much. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:33
|
|