|
Disinterested posted:Eh it's commonly accepted that British military competence specialises around letting everything go to poo poo and then pulling it back together again after.  
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:(The canonical Wolfgang story got posted by someone a while ago on ARRSE, and it goes like this, courtesy of an incredibly confused subaltern. I've added a small amount of punctuation.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:41
|
|
Disinterested posted:Eh it's commonly accepted that British military competence specialises around letting everything go to poo poo and then pulling it back together again after. If the Cold War was decided by drinking and arsing about in the pub, the BOAR would have at least trounced the Warsaw Pact lot!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:If the Cold War was decided by drinking and arsing about in the pub, the BOAR would have at least trounced the Warsaw Pact lot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:57
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It kind of was when you think about it. Booze brought down that Berlin Wall.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:They were. Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I was wondering if any of you know of a good book in english about Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII? Preferably something written by one (obviously someone who never actually had the chance to carry out his mission) or at least using good sources. I've read a lot about the use of kamikazes, the motivation from a political standpoint, tactics, training and so forth but I know almost nothing about the men themselves and how they felt about their mission. I briefly flicked through a book several years ago while doing research about Mishima for an art project - I think it was "Kamikaze Diaries - Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers" by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney. There's something strangely fatalistic with the pilots, if I recall correctly. I remember one pilot who believed Japan had to lose the war in order to become a better nation and that his death was a necessary step towards that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:They were. This could only get better if the electrical system was made by Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Beep beep! I'm the beer and brauts jeep!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Posted the full report here: http://tanks.mod16.org/2015/04/02/report-from-british-strv-103-trials-at-the-baor-1973/ If you have a tank blog and you're not getting angry hate mail, you're doing it wrong! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:I briefly flicked through a book several years ago while doing research about Mishima for an art project - I think it was "Kamikaze Diaries - Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers" by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney. Well, Japan was never going to really win against America. This didn't mean they didn't try but its leaders knew how slim a chance it was. More practically, they wanted the war to be so costly that the Americans would settle for a conditional surrender, hopefully one that allowed Japan to retain some of its conquests. I'm not sure how much the common soldier would be aware of this though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:This whole thing with Wolfgang has had us all entertained over here. It's getting exaggerated in our minds at this point. Like, imagine a bunch of special forces emerging out of some muck in Ghillie suits in the middle of the night, and getting caught in the glare of a pair of headlights. They instinctively think their cover is blown and the exercise is a disaster, until they hear the bell in the truck, and then it's a race to the front of the queue. The guy's been presumably working since the Cold War, yeah? How the hell is everybody so sure he's not secretly a Russian spy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:If you have a tank blog and you're not getting angry hate mail, you're doing it wrong! 100% wehraboos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:If you have a tank blog and you're not getting angry hate mail, you're doing it wrong!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Do you get anything worth remarking on, or is it all pretty generic? Pretty generic. Some of them try to dox me, some fish out hilariously terrible literature, but I don't think anyone's emailed me anything that was too original. The comments, on the other hand, oh boy. Lots of creative individuals there. I can post some good ones, but I'm sure you can achieve the same effect by going to any WWII video on YouTube and scrolling down to the comments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
It's a really great insight into just how brainwashed people are about Dem Darn Lying Commies!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:There's something strangely fatalistic with the pilots, if I recall correctly. I remember one pilot who believed Japan had to lose the war in order to become a better nation and that his death was a necessary step towards that. Funnily enough, he may not necessarily have been wrong - the bit about the better nation, that is, not his own death. That said, do you remember his exact reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
That's a shame about the letters. If you're getting hatemail, and you can't burn it for heat, it should at least be entertaining. I know the internet makes it easier to generate and to track, but how far back do you think this sort of thing goes? Like, right after the war? Some dude in a POW camp furiously scribbling about superweapons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:18
|
|
Kanine posted:I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc. People seem to generally forget that disease and injury killed more dudes during campaign than the actual fighting, that was eventually outpaced by technological developments in the 20th century but before then dying of dysentary or the cold was more common than a war wound. Also, general logistics and supply chains get back seated a lot.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Some dude in a POW camp furiously scribbling about superweapons? I forget the exact time, but I recall a popular story that Allied tank crews thought Tiger Tanks were everywhere along the Western Front in late '44 and '45. Knocked out a Tiger? Nope, that was a Panzer IV! But it's gun! It's Armor! Etc. Even PoW's would talk about experimental stuff and "superweapons" if they were careless enough, to comrades or interrogators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I forget the exact time, but I recall a popular story that Allied tank crews thought Tiger Tanks were everywhere along the Western Front in late '44 and '45. Knocked out a Tiger? Nope, that was a Panzer IV! But it's gun! It's Armor! Etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Park#Second_World_War
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I haven't watched the series/DVD(s) on the subject but I have a book on German PoW's and its a very interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
My favorite military history movie of all time, Flesh + Blood, is now on Netflix! Watch it! Any instance of caracole in film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:People seem to generally forget that disease and injury killed more dudes during campaign than the actual fighting, that was eventually outpaced by technological developments in the 20th century but before then dying of dysentary or the cold was more common than a war wound. This is so very very true of the American Revolutionary War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Argas posted:Well, Japan was never going to really win against America. This didn't mean they didn't try but its leaders knew how slim a chance it was. More practically, they wanted the war to be so costly that the Americans would settle for a conditional surrender, hopefully one that allowed Japan to retain some of its conquests. I'm not sure how much the common soldier would be aware of this though. The thing that struck me at the time was not whether the pilot thought they could or couldn't win - he just believed losing would be the best for the nation. I recall a lot of the pilots being aware of the futility of what they were doing but still following through anyway. You might talk about "duty" or something here, but I'd say the mood was closer to nihilistic. Tomn posted:Funnily enough, he may not necessarily have been wrong - the bit about the better nation, that is, not his own death. Unfortunately, it was something read in passing - I was curious about Japanese death poems and I think a number of the pilots (both kamikaze and oka) wrote them. That said, I feel it was probably along the lines of burning away the nationalistic element of the society and allowing a more humble Japan to face the future. If that is the book I'm thinking of, me from 8 years ago recommends it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc. A couple of things off the top of my head: The inability to produce a breakthrough in WWI had less to do with the machine gun against men charging over open ground and more to do with logistics, communications and the speed of operational movement. The Soviets did not use "human wave assaults" in WWII. They often had numerical superiority, but "lots of men advancing under fire" is a gross oversimplification, and to differentiate it against what the North Koreans/Chinese did in the Korean War needs consideration of how they executed "fire-and-maneuver". Specifically, that the latter forced the defenders to take cover using direct small-arms fire, whereas the former still used traditional artillery barrages and other indirect fire to facilitate movement. Even then, there's also a significant infiltration factor to North Korean/Chinese tactics, so saying they used "human wave" tactics is also an oversimplification. The IJN carriers at Midway did not blow up with rows and rows of parked planes on their decks, despite what the movie might have you believe. MacArthur was not a very good general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
There's a misconception that war at some point in the past was chivalrous and honourable. Medieval warfare was gruesome and people used the most effective means available to kill each other, including starvation and disease, although one notably different aspect was that you'd try to capture the enemy alive to ransom them off. War in the 18th century often involved fighting in orderly lines because the battlefield was so confusing, not because of some code of honour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:The thing that struck me at the time was not whether the pilot thought they could or couldn't win - he just believed losing would be the best for the nation. I recall a lot of the pilots being aware of the futility of what they were doing but still following through anyway. You might talk about "duty" or something here, but I'd say the mood was closer to nihilistic. It's hard to say because I'm just not sure how much information the average Japanese soldier would access to. The officers, particularly all those troublesome junior officers tended to better informed. One aspect, as an all-knowing person decades from the future, would let them focus their resources on things like feeding the starving population. The mentality that encouraged kamikazes and all those suicidal banzai charges has its roots in the Hagakure, which essentially said that a samurai's only purpose was to die and that it was better to strive to die than try and survive. Didn't matter whether you killed anyone in the process. Just die serving your lord and it is a good death. On historical misconceptions, there's a lot that comes with making a cool narrative flow. Midway is a popular example. Midway is popularly depicted as some kind of struggle against overwhelming odds, and that the miraculous victory was what determined further naval operations in the Pacific. One of these is that the Americans planes struck the Japanese carriers just as they were preparing to launch their own attacks on the Americans, which gradenko_2000 noted. Shattered Sword is basically a book dedicated to debunking these popular myths and trying to paint as clear a picture of what happened. A good if lengthy read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
I think a general rule of thumb that works well for military (or any) history is that if multiple nations in the past did something that looks really really stupid to us now, there was usually a good reason or at least a sensible reason for it at the time. Edit: Argas posted:The mentality that encouraged kamikazes and all those suicidal banzai charges has its roots in the Hagakure, which essentially said that a samurai's only purpose was to die and that it was better to strive to die than try and survive. Didn't matter whether you killed anyone in the process. Just die serving your lord and it is a good death. Wasn't the Hagakure written during a time when the samurai didn't have much to do anyways beyond sitting on their asses writing poetry and administering to a land at peace, i.e. with very little reason to worry about death or even battle? Tomn fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc. You can declare a weapon better than another by comparing stats on a spreadsheet, and quality and quantity must come at the expense of each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Chamale posted:There's a misconception that war at some point in the past was chivalrous and honourable. Medieval warfare was gruesome and people used the most effective means available to kill each other, including starvation and disease, although one notably different aspect was that you'd try to capture the enemy alive to ransom them off. War in the 18th century often involved fighting in orderly lines because the battlefield was so confusing, not because of some code of honour. I would say that the misconception is that the 17th century is some swashbuckling age of romance, but then I remember the time I read about a guy who demanded that his drinking partner drink his health: the latter refused, then finally stood up, very deliberately took off his gorget and placed it on the table, gestured toward his dagger, and said "Here have I this; with this will I drink your health!" Which is pretty much straight out of Dumas, so...  Edit: Tomn posted:I think a general rule of thumb that works well for military (or any) history is that if multiple nations in the past did something that looks really really stupid to us now, there was usually a good reason or at least a sensible reason for it at the time. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc. If anybody ever tries to tell you that X battle was the decisive turning point on which the entire war hinged, they're talking out their rear end. Also, logistics. Can't stress that one enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Wasn't the Hagakure written during a time when the samurai didn't have much to do anyways beyond sitting on their asses writing poetry and administering to a land at peace, i.e. with very little reason to worry about death or even battle? Yes. Dude basically wants to commit suicide to follow his lord in death. Tokugawa shogun sees why this might be incredibly problematic and outlaws it. But that means nothing to a man prepared for death so in addition, committing suicide to follow your lord into death will also end up shaming your lord's family as well as your own. Fast forward and bushido, which was largely invented in the mostly peaceful Edo period, is dug up, edited here and there, and introduced to the military.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:The guy's been presumably working since the Cold War, yeah? They stopped using Soltau in 1994. Wolfgang apparently took all the money that he'd been patiently and Teutonically saving up for twenty years and took it off to a quiet retirement in Spain. There was also a running joke in BAOR that if ever war did happen, Wolfgang was right at the top of someone's secret shortlist of people who would have to be shot immediately; even if he wasn't actually a spy, he still knew far too much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 10:11
|
|
Kanine posted:I know this is a really broad question, but what are some really common misconceptions with military history in general. More specifically, like what do people generally get wrong about stuff like the World Wars, The Cold War, various 19th century wars, etc. Well obviously the classic ones are like (1) Germany in WW2 was some kind of military genius operation with uniformly superior generals, men and gear that was just brought down by superior numbers etc. (2) Russians in the cold war were a bunch of bungling shitlords who had terrible equipment etc. (3) Wars are won or lost in single decisive set piece battles (4) Medieval battles were full of peasants charging at each-other, or alternatively knights were the only 'professional' soldiers (5) Soldiers are micro-managed by generals like it's an RTS (6) People over-estimate the advantages of defence. Most great generals in history have always preferred to be on the offensive. (7) Napoleonic battles were full of situations with two lines of men bayonet charging eachother, and these men often met and had a melee (this very rarely happened, usually one side broke) (8) That battles are decided by people fighting to the death instead of running away or surrendering (9) A great many generals are mythologised. Most particularly American WW2 generals like Patton, MacArthur etc. usually because of the way these men carry themselves and their aggression. People tend to overlook less flashy but important qualities, like those exhibited by Marshall.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
When modern nation states first came into being with the advent of the industrial revolution they all needed to invent some kind of creation myth or nationalistic narrative. Basically everything contained in the popular history of any country was a story invented at the earliest in the 19th century that was at best wildly exaggerated if not outright made up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well obviously the classic ones are like I think you are missing: 10. Wars are lost or won by some small difference in the equipment one side or another is using.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:26
|
|
Fangz posted:I think you are missing: Yep. It's not that it never happens, but it's rare. And usually when one side has better equipment it's a reflection of superior planning, doctrine, preparation etc. and the equipment is a manifestation of that deeper difference.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
I was really thinking of Deadliest Warriors, really, which exemplifies the very worst of that sort of nonsense. I just saw an episode where they concluded that Ghengis Khan would defeat Hannibal because the Mongols had better helmets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:33
|
|