|
Speaking of literacy, I just got around to watching the warspot lecture on Red Army infantry daily life (in Russian, sadly). The topic of writing letters home came up, and it was pretty interesting. Many people didn't write at all, not just because they were illiterate, but because paper was rare; most of it was used to roll joints. Some soldiers could not write but wanted to, so a literate soldier could find himself writing home in their stead, especially when girls from liberated lands would write to the unit. There was censorship, of course, but soldiers got around it. An example they gave was "we are approaching a city half of whose name is loved by half of the world, the other half is loved by all" which would likely be skimmed over by anyone looking for city names. Since they were soldiers, this naturally doubles as a rude joke: the city in question was Kherson (kher = dick, son = sleep).
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Don't talk about X, it'll just go into gay black hitler territory! That's not history yet. Let other threads handle it. If you want to discuss current events there are multiple threads for it on SA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
What kind of tank is this? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
One of these ? A lot of pre-war tanks had extra machine guns or miniturrets on the hull. Sadly, this rad feature was a structural liability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Looks like an M2A4 Light Tank or one of the earliest M3 Lights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In an English Civil War II between the British army and the RN/RAF, who would win? clearly the atlantians would win
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:One of these ? This didn't stop the Bureau of Ordinance from studding many of their proposed designs with extra hull MGs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
sometimes, corruption paysquote:An ROC Navy tank landing ship (LST 210, Chung Lung (中榮)) was anchored near the PLA's landing site on October 25, and used its significant firepower (2x2 40mm guns, 6x1 40mm guns, 8x1 20mm guns) to destroy beached PLA landing craft, again made up mostly of wooden junks and fishing boats, during the battle. LST 210 was supposed to leave on the evening of October 24 after offloading its cargo, but remained, offering an official excuse of "bad weather". The unmentioned real reason the ship remained in the area was that it was running a side business of smuggling brown sugar from Taiwan island in exchange for peanut oil. However, there was not enough peanut oil on the whole island for the deal, so the ship was forced to stay for another day while waiting for more peanut oil to be produced, making it the accidental hero of the battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
It's an M3 Stuart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You perhaps misunderstand. There have been been English royal armies, but there isn't one currently. The British Army is nominally raised under the consent of the Parliament and civil authority. Queen Elizabeth could, in some kind of existential crisis that would overturn 400 years of tradition, raise a personal army and it would be considered the Royal Army. The Royal Navy and the Royal Flying Corps (later the Royal Air Force) were constituted under Royal Warrants and serve as examples for how that would be done. Um, yes, I know this, I'm the one who originally pointed it out. I was making the rhetorical point to the guy who said that the Queen is the commander in chief of the British army that 'commander in chief' and 'able to tell that army to do whatever the hell you want' are not the same thing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Um, yes, I know this, I'm the one who originally pointed it out. I was making the rhetorical point to the guy who said that the Queen is the commander in chief of the British army that 'commander in chief' and 'able to tell that army to do whatever the hell you want' are not the same thing. Does this mean that hypothetically, the Queen has the legal power to order the Royal Air Force to bomb London, but does not have the authority to tell the Army to occupy London?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It's an M3 Stuart. It's an M2 Light Tank. E: The Driver and Co-Driver hatches are M2 style hatches. At best/worst its an M2/M3 hybrid if you look at the gun's mantlet, coupled with the hatches. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
The tanks look very similar, but the right vision slit on the turret and the shape of the sponsons indicate that it's an M3, not an M2. Whoever wrote this that has presumably read the full comic also thinks it's an M3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The tanks look very similar, but the right vision slit on the turret and the shape of the sponsons indicate that it's an M3, not an M2. So did early M3's have the M2 hatches or is that a thing that was retroactively added to older tanks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Navy tries a new tactic at the Dardanelles that looks suspiciously like an old tactic; the French take a turn at minesweeping in the Narrows. Preparations for Neuve Chapelle continue with battalion headquarters being set up in haystacks, machine-guns preparing to deliver indirect fire, and working parties building gun emplacements for heavy howitzers that have not, as yet, arrived at the front. Some of them are only just about to leave England. Meanwhile, at Carency (home of the stiffest fighting during First Artois), there's been a lot of mining going on. (The entry for the 24th of February has been updated.) The French sappers stumble across something very interesting. Oh yeah, and Our Advertising Feature takes a turn for the skeevy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
You forgot this part: quote:By October, ROC troops had laid 7,455 land mines, and constructed roughly 200 earthen bunkers on the shores of Kinmen, as well as several anti-amphibious landing beach obstacles. The ROC garrison on Kinmen was also reinforced with more armor, troops and supplies. quote:Around 01:30 on October 25, a Nationalist patrol accidentally set off one of the land mines. The blast alerted other units all along the northern shore and the PLA's quiet approach to Kinmen was compromised. Immediately, flares were fired into the air by ROC troops, which brightly illuminated the PLA's fleet and gave the Nationalists clear shots at the former. I think amphibious landings were simply not feasible for the PRC, and the ROC's victory on the defense was probably assured, even if they got a fortuitious comedy of errors. I will, on the other hand, tell people about this story every time I fry something up with peanut oil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Would you rather hear about some douche in a lace collar and the time he spent at court rubbing elbows with important people, or the continuing adventures of Hieronymus Sebastian Schutze? GreyjoyBastard posted:I think you know the answer to that. 21 May 1626, Legnano and Fendrich Heironymous Sebastian Schutze and Lieutenant Felix Steter are on the way back to Busto Arsizio from the trial we read about earlier. They're riding separately (this is deliberate), each with an entourage, also mounted. (A number of people show up briefly in the witness statements: "The Fendrich's courier;" "the Lieutenant's bodyguard," etc.) They're also escorted by at least two musketeers--a Gefreyter and a common musketeer are mentioned, but if there are more musketeers around, they are not listed as witnesses. (Look how soldiers move through a location--if they're travelling back from Legnano, that's about 4 miles; if they're coming from Gallarate (both these cities are mentioned in these documents) that's 5 miles. Even for so brief a time away from the protective bubble of large amounts of armed men, they go escorted.) And they manage to get in a fight again. According to Steter and his witness: Steter told his bodyguard “Look, there is the Fendrich; go gently then, since we don't know what he'll do.” They rode between the Fendrich and one member of his entourage, the steward Christoff von Hubrig or Hubrich. Schutze rode forward toward Steter, then broke into a full run and rode around him. Finally he grabbed onto Steter's saddle, said “You dog, I want to give this to you” (Loose translation of “Du hundt ich wolte dirs bald machen”), and laid his other hand on his pistol. Steter responded: “Will you attack me on the street, then? I'll ride back and file suit against you in the regiment for a highway robber and for a rogue.” Schutze wouldn't let him ride on, but at last Steter separated himself with violence. Schutze rode to Busto Arsizio to file suit with the Regimentsschultheiss, while Steter made for His Grace The Lord Oberst Lieutenant to file his own suit. According to Schutze and his witnesses: Schutze was riding back from the trial with his entourage, making sure to maintain a distance between himself and Steter, when he had to stop to take a piss. This lost him a little bit of distance, and then he rode into some bushes and knocked his hat off. Hubrig got it for him again, but this lost even more distance, so Schutze turned off the main road onto the footpath and made for Busto Arsizio at a full gallop with the intention to “ride away from the Lieutenant's gaze.” He seems to be deliberately avoiding conflict. Nevertheless, the Lieutenant rode up to them and began to insult him, “many times and openly, as a rogue and highway robber.” According to one of the witnesses, Schutze responded: “Holla, Lieutenant, is your Fendrich a rogue,” stressing their difference of rank. Steter said “Yes. Ride away now--how do we want to bear this out?” which seems like a threat. More than one of the witnesses testified that as soon as both of them realized that this was going to end in lawsuits, Steter turned to them and asked them if they would “tell the correct truth about what happened” in the upcoming trial. One of them, Gefreyter of Musketeers David Schmidt, responded “I will say what the truth was, if I'm asked, because it is due to me as an honorable soldier.” Steter, taking the hint, cursed the sacraments to Schmidt's face and said that he wanted to beat him his whole life long. On his way into the courtyard to file suit, Steter began to curse and insult von Hubrig, who promptly filed a separate suit against him. One very interesting thing about Schutze's complaint to his authorities is that in the course of listing the various injustices against him he mentions that while the earlier trial was going on his flag was taken away from him. It seems like he's not allowed to keep it in his quarters (which he shares, incidentally, with “the Herr Hauptmann, the Regimental Provost, and other Fendriches”--I wonder how big this space was and how many people, soldiers plus civilians, were stuffed into it) or possibly even touch it, as long as he's under suspicion. This “bums me out exceedingly,” he says: “mir zu höchsten despert.” And indeed, the flag remains taken from him during this trial as well, which is why Schutze wrote a letter to the Obrist Lieutenant informing him of the fact that people whose honor has been questioned can't bear flags and asking to have it restored to him. He begged the Obrist Lieutenant to admit that he had no idea this would happen and allow the flag to be returned to him. So it may be possible that some of that highly emotional flag thing I wrote about earlier is specific to Fendriches. Maybe there's an entire flag-bearer subculture that other people are aware of only in passing. Discharge, after the trial but before the verdict: Lieutenant Steter shall betake himself to his quarters, exercising his command as before. Until the judgment has been given, he shall give no temptation of enmity to the Fendrich. Fendrich Hieronymus Bastian Schutze shall betake himself once more to that place where up until now he has been contained (he had been confined to quarters during the earlier trial) and until the judgment has been publicized he will remain there, and in no way give the Lieutenant cause to fight. (He didn't do this, by the way, which is why the Oberst Lieutenant denied his request about the flag.) Verdicts, 6 June 1626: The Lieutenant shall openly and publicly apologize to the Fendrich. He shall also retract what he said to Hubrig. In October, Fendrich Schutze also received a “Gerichtlicher Schein,” which stated that Steter attacked him in his honorable name and that Schutze could not bear this. It also stated that Steter didn't really mean it, and that the Regimentsschultheiss restores Schutze's honorable name to him, which this public legal ticket should also make plain. Signed and sealed 8 Oct 1626. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:You forgot this part: Back then they probably used most of the peanut oil in lamps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
So was suing each other just what these guys did when there was no campaign to be conducted/in winter quarters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:So was suing each other just what these guys did when there was no campaign to be conducted/in winter quarters? (2) i really have no idea whether or not these people are paying attention to the, you know, war part of what they do (3) Schutze and Steter seem to have a special relationship, nobody else I've read about managed to get into a fight on the way back from the trial that dealt with an earlier fight. I've also never read another trial that had discharge instructions before the verdict, which are basically just "Oh my God, shut up" HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
I'm sure this is meant to be the judge but i really want it to be whomever's counsel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I'm sure this is meant to be the judge but i really want it to be whomever's counsel. This can't be generalized, since I have no idea how civilian trials in Germany work during this period. At least in Saxony, military law is different, based on long custom, common sense, religion, and "experience of the art of war" rather than formal legal education. This was the case throughout the German speaking military world in the previous century, according to Burschel, but by the 17th century it is no longer the case in the part of Germany he wrote his book about. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Fendrich Heironymous Sebastian Schutze Yesss  I absolutely love these. I love reading Steter's testimony and just immediately thinking that doesn't sound like something Schutze would do. It just seems so loving obvious. What a bunch of shitheads everyone is, in every era! EDIT: Also, "I want to beat you your whole life long," is the best insult. LordSaturn fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Aerial photography has come of age just in time for the Battle of Neuve Chapelle. On the other hand, the siege howitzers still haven't arrived yet. General Joffre calls for a "brutal" attack at Champagne, and another day of nothing at the Dardanelles will require Admiral Carden to put his thinking cap on; meanwhile, the Ottomans have noticed a pattern developing. In the paper, the casualty list sneaks out to nearly a full page, and there's also nearly a full page of officers' commissions from the London Gazette. A cynic might draw some connection there...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The tanks look very similar, but the right vision slit on the turret and the shape of the sponsons indicate that it's an M3, not an M2. Either way, the fixed MGs at the front seem hilariously pointless. Apparently on the M2A4 they were fired by the driver with his steering levers, which means he couldn't hit anything not directly in front of his viewport. It seems like a holdover from the idea of a tank just charging into a trench or at a vague enemy position off in the foggy distance, spraying unaimed MG fire to keep heads down as they advance ahead of everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Either way, the fixed MGs at the front seem hilariously pointless. Apparently on the M2A4 they were fired by the driver with his steering levers, which means he couldn't hit anything not directly in front of his viewport. It seems like a holdover from the idea of a tank just charging into a trench or at a vague enemy position off in the foggy distance, spraying unaimed MG fire to keep heads down as they advance ahead of everyone. They were. The M6 heavy tank had at one point dual rear hull MGs but that was nixed. It still had a coaxial 37mm gun when produced. Why this is, no one knows. Of course, the M6 was so bad it never got shipped to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Those are supposed to be fired in the vague direction of enemy infantry to suppress them. Turns out it didn't work that well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:They were. The M6 heavy tank had at one point dual rear hull MGs but that was nixed. It still had a coaxial 37mm gun when produced. Why this is, no one knows. Probably so that you could gently caress up softer targets while keeping your main gun for harder things, in theory at least. I think there might have been a strain of people in the US at the time who thought that was a good idea. I remember looking at an old US intelligence report on Axis armor in a used bookstore once (seemed to be authentic and period; it was priced at a couple hundred USD), and apparently for a while the US thought the Panther (or maybe it was the Tiger) had a coax 20mm. No idea why they thought this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Fixed MGs on tanks actually were still a thing in some cases until the early post-war period. The IS-7 and early T-54s carried fixed MG as did the early test versions of the M41 Walker Bulldog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Probably so that you could gently caress up softer targets while keeping your main gun for harder things, in theory at least. The 37mm gun was a poor performer as an HE weapon, though, to the point where armored cars with it(the M8) had the turret removed to save weight. They took a bazooka instead for defense against enemy armor. The Bureau of Ordnance was way out of touch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Another odd bow machine gun configuration is that on BMP-3, two PKTs fired by passengers. While not fixed, they do seem a little bit unnecessary. Btw. wasn't there that field modification on Stuarts that would deflect bow machinegun fire downward so it could clear enemy foxholes by driving over them? Panzeh posted:The 37mm gun was a poor performer as an HE weapon, though, to the point where armored cars with it(the M8) had the turret removed to save weight. They took a bazooka instead for defense against enemy armor. 37mm canister ammo would gently caress infantry up at close range, though, especially in bushy environments like bocage and jungle. In that sense it might have been of some use as a coaxial 'shotgun', but who knows what they really intended it for. My guess is someone just thought that it should have equal or better armament as M3 Medium Tank, and that had two guns. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I absolutely love these. I love reading Steter's testimony and just immediately thinking that doesn't sound like something Schutze would do. It just seems so loving obvious. Also, I think it's really cool that Steter can't order the musketeer to lie for him, and the musketeer isn't cowed by his rank into doing it, but retains the self-respect to mouth off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:People in this culture are way more guileless than we are. They're just not really good at lying. Is this a real thing? I've read a couple fantasy and scifi books where modern humans are extremely good at deception and spotting deception because we're exposed to so much marketing, but I didn't think it was a credible idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Another odd bow machine gun configuration is that on BMP-3, two PKTs fired by passengers. While not fixed, they do seem a little bit unnecessary. I think there's plates on the factory spec M2 medium for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:It's not even worth arguing at this point, since coming up with a defense of an imaginary scenario where Germany "has a chance" always ends up with an Allied win and thinking otherwise labels you as sympathetic or something. So... yeah, that's a fuckton of gay black Hitler. chitoryu12 posted:I literally never learned how to read a map in public school outside of telling people how to use the provided scale for distance, as well as the most basic stuff like equator and the difference between latitude and longitude. Any military topographic map would be completely baffling to the average high school senior.  (Or possibly younger). Ensign Expendable posted:The tanks look very similar, but the right vision slit on the turret and the shape of the sponsons indicate that it's an M3, not an M2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What both of you seem to have missed is the red star on the side of the turret meaning it's a Lend-Lease tank in Soviet hands. Thus they have to be M3s because only the British got M2s from that program. What you seem to have missed is that it's a red upside-down pentagram cause it's driven by literal demons
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:They were. The M6 heavy tank had at one point dual rear hull MGs but that was nixed. It still had a coaxial 37mm gun when produced. Why this is, no one knows. Not as funny as the M2 Medium. Same killing power as an M2A4 or Stuart, but with thicker armor and slower. The initial plans had it with bullet deflector plates in the rear, which would literally ricochet the rear sponson machine gun fire down into trenches as the tank drove over it. Eventually everyone realized that this was a loving stupid concept and threw them out. The M2 Medium in general is pretty useless, and is most important as the stepping stone to the Sherman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
^^^^ ETA: it's also notable for being the testing ground for the M3's 75mm sponson mount as a terrible stopgap. StashAugustine posted:What you seem to have missed is that it's a red upside-down pentagram cause it's driven by literal demons 
Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
I learned how to read military topographical maps from the first Operation Flashpoint when I was in high school, does that count here? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Bring back hachures, everyone likes those better anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:49
|
|
