|
JosefStalinator posted:Well, uh, sup Mr. Internet. I'm not gonna lie, I kinda wish we had a common thread we could taunt each other in more regularly, but things might get salty! I just can't wait for this phase to be over so I (and possibly we) can do a postmortem on the horrible decisions that have led to literally thousands of pixel-truppen dying. All I know is that the spectator thread has been crazy active compared to other adversarial forum based LPs, so we must be doing something It's striking what a good simulation the game is of WWI fog of war and command, especially in this format. Again, highly recommended to anyone who reads this thread.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
WWII today has a little snippet about our favourite topic today: http://ww2today.com/10-april-1945-the-british-confront-looting-and-fraternisation-in-germany quote:It was said that there were 130,000 dozen bottles of bubbly in Bremen, but it was suggested that this was a rumour in order to encourage us to capture the place more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
100 Years Ago It's a pretty stacked day. The Friendly Feldwebel has lost his commanding officer to politics. The Ottomans are massing in force at Shaiba, to threaten Basra. The Legion of Frontiersmen leaves for Africa, prompting casual racism from one officer already in theatre. The French make an important decision for their future tank development. Herbert Sulzbach goes back to Les Petites Armoises. The Italians move a big step closer to joining the war. The French plan to renew the Battle of Woevre. And Avon tyres come up with the best war-themed advert since "Enormous Slaughter in Prices". Generation Internet posted:I just can't wait for this phase to be over so I (and possibly we) can do a postmortem on the horrible decisions that have led to literally thousands of pixel-truppen dying. All I know is that the spectator thread has been crazy active compared to other adversarial forum based LPs, so we must be doing something Just confirming that there will be an ersatz 100 Years Ago post when the fighting's done. With plenty of testimony from the blokes on the ground, natch. "On the ground" being the operative phrase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Japanese Explosive Ordnance: Army and Navy Ammunition Army Projectiles: Part 6 We start seeing more aircraft cannon rounds, specifically some of the larger calibers used on IJ aircraft. Since we're still in the Army portion, it's safe to assume that the guns mentioned are the ones used in the Ki-45 and Ki-46 (variant depending). 37mm High Explosive Incendiary Projectile  Overall length of projectile: 89mm (without fuze) Length of complete round: 197mm (fuzed) Diameter at bourrelet: 37mm Width of rotating band: 10mm Weight of projectile filled: 436.2g Filling: Cyclonite and incendiary mixture Used in: Ho-203 aircraft cannon Case: -Length: 111.5mm -Diameter at base: 47mm -Weight (Empty): 226.5g -Remarks: The case is comparatively short, made of brass, and is slightly necked. Propellant: Graphited smokeless powder in flat 4mm squares poured loosely into the case and sealed in with a cardboard disc. The weight of the propellant is 59.8g. Color and Markings: Black body, red nose band, yellow body band. Characters stenciled on body:  (Ho 203)Fuzing: Type 100 small instantaneous fuze. Remarks: This projectile is constructed in two pieces. It has a nearly straight-sided main body and an ogival-shaped nose piece which threads into the main body. The main charge is cyclonite and an incendiary mixture. The incendiary mixture is pressed into the base of the cavity, with the cyclonite filling the remained of the cavity and the nose piece. There is also an empty practice projectile similar in appearance to the H.E.I. but having the nose piece and dummy fuze constructed in one piece. The projectile is painted black overall. Characters stenciled on practice shell body: (Ho 203) and  (Ma 438)37mm High Explosive Incendiary Projectile  Overall length of projectile: 89mm (without fuze) Length of complete round: 246mm Diameter at bourrelet: 37mm Width of rotating band: 10mm Weight of projectile empty: 398.3g Filling: Mixture of cyclonite and wax and incendiary composition Used in: Ho 204 aircraft cannon Case: -Length: 144mm -Diameter at base: 43.5mm -Weight (empty): 381.2g -Remarks: The case is of the rimless type and is lightly necked. Propellant: Graphited smokeless powder in flat 4mm squares poured loosely into the case and sealed in with a cardboard disk. The weight of the propellant is 75.1g Color and markings: Black body, red nose tip, yellow body band. Characters stenciled on body:  (Ho 204)Fuzing: Type 4 super-detonating fuze. Remarks: The ammunition for the Ho 204 uses the same projectile as the Ho 203 ammunition but the case is longer. The projectile is constructed in two pieces: a straight sided main body and an ogival-shaped nose which screws into the main body. There is only one cavity into which both the incendiary and high-explosive filling are pressed. 37mm Practice Projectile  Overall length of projectile: 124mm Length of case: 144mm Length of complete round: 247mm Diameter at bourrelet: 37mm Width of rotating band: 8mm Filling: Sawdust Used in: Ho 204 aircraft cannon Color and Markings: Black overall Fuzing: None Remarks: This projectile has the appearance of an A.P. projectile. It is filled with sawdust and has a cavity closed by a base plug. 37mm Ammunition While we have already gone over some examples of 37mm ammo, we finally start seeing the types used in anti-tank and anti-air guns. In fact, the 37mm rounds vary depending on which make and model of gun it was supposed to be used in, having some notable differences in case length.  There are eight 37mm anti-tank and tank guns, all sizes of which use the same projectiles but have different cartridge cases.  Propellant: Type 11th year infantry gun: 1.85oz of graphited smokeless powder in the form of flakes poured into the case and sealed with a cardboard closing disc. Type 94 tank gun: 2.7oz of graphited smokeless powder ub tge firn if rectangular flakes. Type 94 AT gun, Type 98 Gun, and Type 100 Tank Gun: 4.3oz of graphited smokeless powder in the form of unitubular grains contained in a silk bag. Type 97 AT gun: 5oz of graphited smokeless powder in the form of short, cylindrical grains contained in a silk bag. Type 94 37mm High Explosive Projectile  Type 97 AT (97) Type 94 AT (94AT) Type 94 Tank Gun (94T) Type 1 Anti-tank / Tank Gun (1AT/T) Type 11th Year Infantry Gun (11th) Overall length of projectile: 125mm (No fuze) for all types Length of complete round (Fuzed): (97) 349mm (94AT) 266mm (94T) 223mm (1AT/T) 349mm (11th) 221mm Diameter at bourrelet: 37mm for all types Width of rotating band: 8mm for all types Weight of projectile, filled: 595.1g Filling: Picric Acid and TNT Used in: All 37mm guns Colors and Markings: Black body, red nose band, yellow body band (some rounds may have white body band added) Fuzing: Type 93 small instantaneous fuze. Remarks: This steel projectile is filled with TNT and picric acid. The after two-thirds of the projectile cavity is filled with high grade cast TNT. The forward one-third of the projectile cavity is filled with picric acid. The entire bursting charge is enclosed in a heavy waxed paper casing with a double thickness between the TNT and picric acid charge. Type 94 37mm Armor-Piercing High Explosive Projectile  Overall length of projectile: 114mm (No fuze) for all types Length of complete round (Fuzed): (94AT) 262mm (94T) 228mm (97AT) 345mm (11th) 218mm Diameter at bourrelet: 37mm for all types Width of rotating band: 9.5mm for all types Weight of projectile, filled: 1 pound 1/4 oz Filling: Picric Acid Used in: Type 11th Year Infantry Gun, Type 94 Tank Gun, Type 94 Anti-tank Gun, Type 97 Anti-tank Gun, Type 98 Tank Gun, Type 100 Tank Gun Color and Markings: Black body, red nose tip, white body band Fuzing: Type 94 small delay base fuze Remarks: This projectile is made of high grade steel. The main charge cavity contains a small wooden plug in the forward portion and a paper covered picric acid charge aft of the wooden nose plug. The Type 94 small delay base fuze screws into the base of the projectile, also acting as a base plug. Type 1 37mm High Explosive Projectile  This round is used in the Type 94 Anti-tank gun and the Type 1 Anti-tank gun. Overall length of projectile: 104mm (no fuze) for all types Length of complete round, fuzed: (94AT) 250mm (1AT) 333mm Diameter at bourelet: 37mm for all types Width of rotating band: 11mm for all types Weight of projectile: 1 lb 6 oz without explosive Filling: Picric Acid Used in: Type 1 Tank Gun, Type 1 Anti-tank Gun, Type 94 Anti-tank Gun Color and Markings: Black body, red nose tip, white body band. Remarks: This projectile is constructed of high grade steel. It has no sharply defined bourrelet. It uses a small Mk 1 base fuze which also acts as a base plug. Next Time: 40mm and 47mm IJA projectiles
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:All I know is that the spectator thread has been crazy active compared to other adversarial forum based LPs, so we must be doing something Speaking as someone from the peanut gallery, let me just say that it has been an absolute pleasure to watch the For serious, though, I highly recommend joining in, and even if you're not interested in participating, at least check out the spectator thread. Watching two groups of people mass-shadowboxing at each other does provide at least some insights into what goes into military thinking. Trin Tragula posted:With plenty of testimony from the blokes on the ground, natch. "On the ground" being the operative phrase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pg3rmc243g
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Speaking of the Civil War, I've often heard/read from more informed people that George Thomas is maybe the most under-appreciated general of the war. Is this true? I'm aware I can just read wikipedia but I like reading what you guys write.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Grant and Sherman are unironically still the most under-appreciated generals of that war.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Haha, are the finnish terms for "artillery fire" and "flame fire" similar? Finnish seems to be a language deliberately designed to maximize pun potential. There was a goon who'd translate Fingerpori comic strips in one thread, they were amazing. Example from Wikipedia:  "In this strip, Heimo Veisa buys regular "maito" because "kyytön maito" is too expensive. "Kyyttö" is a rare Finnish breed of cattle, "kyytön maito" is "kyyttö's milk". The wording can also be read as follows: "kyy" is "viper", "-tön" is a privative suffix, and "kyytön" is "viperless"."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Grant and Sherman are unironically still the most under-appreciated generals of that war. Yep. What I normally hear down here in the South that is "Grant was a drunken, corrupt butcher who got his soldiers killed by blundering around like a moron. He lucked himself into winning.  " and "Sherman was a monstrous butcher who liked to kill civilians for the fun of it. He has bloody hands! "
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
They were both loving good. Mercifully there are quite a few people rehabilitating both of them atm.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Yep. What I normally hear down here in the South that is "Grant was a drunken, corrupt butcher who got his soldiers killed by blundering around like a moron. He lucked himself into winning. I mean even if you granted (heh!) that the Union won by sheer numbers, they still won. It's like being bitter over Haig marching on Berlin six inches at a time - the Central Powers still ran out of able-bodied soldiers before the Entente did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:07
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I mean even if you granted (heh!) that the Union won by sheer numbers, they still won. It's like being bitter over Haig marching on Berlin six inches at a time - the Central Powers still ran out of able-bodied soldiers before the Entente did. And why wouldn't it be even more embarrassing for your side that you were beaten up by an apparently incompetent drunk. Of course, Grant was actually a loving boss.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Sherman and Grant were both loving bosses. The Union had some off generals that did some stupid things, (and had hilarious facial hair) but I find it hilarious these two are picked on by these sore losers because they actually helped win it. Oddly enough, these same people never seem to see or talk about the facts over the generals of the Confederates who were blundering monsters though. How very very strange.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Yep. What I normally hear down here in the South that is "Grant was a drunken, corrupt butcher who got his soldiers killed by blundering around like a moron. He lucked himself into winning. That's because those are the people who are still sore about the survival of the Union if not the abolition of slavery. No person is without their vices, and military leaders are probably more subject to that truth than most. I don't give a drat if Meade was struck by a seizure and thought it was God Himself speaking to him after the first contact at Gettysburg, he realized his position and reinforced the gently caress out of it. Same with Grant, it doesn't matter whether he drank a jug of blood freshly spilled by Union infantry every day, he knew what advantages he had and used those advantages to crush the confederate army. If there was ever anything to the dashing and daring of confederate strategists, Grant's gamble to surround Vicksburg topped all of it with room to spare. He wasn't someone who solely relied on attrition alone for victory, he just wasn't afraid to trade men for strategic gains. That's what people worship Patton for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Also someone please post not_a_single_civilian_died_under_shermans_watch.txt again
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Can someone educate a poor limey on what exactly is supposed to have made Lee a great general? Pretty much all I know is that he lost Gettysburg and was highly rated. Can anyone shed some more light on why people thought he was good and whether he was actually competent in reality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:25
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Can someone educate a poor limey on what exactly is supposed to have made Lee a great general? Pretty much all I know is that he lost Gettysburg and was highly rated. Can anyone shed some more light on why people thought he was good and whether he was actually competent in reality? A lot of milhistorians are pretty loving harsh on Lee these days. Lee has become a mythical figure because of the way he behaved after the war, and what he represented to the South. In fact, this very fresh article sort of explains it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I just can't wait for this phase to be over so I (and possibly we) can do a postmortem on the horrible decisions that have led to literally thousands of pixel-truppen dying. All I know is that the spectator thread has been crazy active compared to other adversarial forum based LPs, so we must be doing something
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Grant and Sherman are unironically still the most under-appreciated generals of that war. You'd think a guy with the initials U.S. beating a bunch of freedom-hatin' slavers would get more recognition in America, but alas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Trying to assemble an opinion on Lee means having to reconcile the arguments that: 1) He was genuinely a very good general who could often leverage information about the enemy and the terrain into a plan for victory; 2) He did however owe much to Longstreet and Jackson who's tactical control turned his plans into victories; 3) And to his opponents, who's shocking negligence did much on its own merits to hand Lee many of his victories; 4) While it would be unfair to describe him as a defensive general given his aggressive preference for hammer and anvil tactics in many of his battles, it is notable that both times he went on the strategic offensive it culminated in him suffering defeats of varying magnitude. I think Gettysburg is the measure of the man - his tactical control of the battle is woeful and shows up how much he relied on (now dead) subordinates for this role. Without the advantage of being able to see his opponent's hand typically granted him by Stuart all he can come up with is a frontal assault as bloody and as futile as anything Grand ordered. When faced on even terms with an army drawn up in a line against him, Lee shows himself as incapable of solving the problem as any of his contemporaries. He deserves respect for what he achieved, but I don't think what he achieved puts him in the hall of best generals of history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And why wouldn't it be even more embarrassing for your side that you were beaten up by an apparently incompetent drunk.  You have no idea how happy I was once I got out of high school. This kind of poo poo was taught by history teachers. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:You'd think a guy with the initials U.S. beating a bunch of freedom-hatin' slavers would get more recognition in America, but alas. Civil war is a bitch. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Can someone educate a poor limey on what exactly is supposed to have made Lee a great general? Pretty much all I know is that he lost Gettysburg and was highly rated. Can anyone shed some more light on why people thought he was good and whether he was actually competent in reality? He was pretty unquestionably brilliant tactically. He more or less successfully fought off an army much larger and much better equipped than his own for well over 3 years, winning some seriously lopsided victories in the process. He was also a pretty exceptional leader; he chose his commanders very well, gave them clear orders and the latitude to execute on their own terms, managed the sometimes immense egos and associated conflicts among his subordinates very well, and generally fostered pretty exceptional morale with his soldiers. Strategically, he was pretty badly out of date. He believed very strongly in the "decisive battle" and was always seeking said battle, not really understanding the effects that industrialization and conscription had on warfare. We're kind of the middle of an anti-Lee backlash these days for a variety of reasons; if you're wanting a balanced assessment I think McPherson and Foote both pretty much nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:A lot of milhistorians are pretty loving harsh on Lee these days. Lee has become a mythical figure because of the way he behaved after the war, and what he represented to the South. In fact, this very fresh article sort of explains it. Lee was well respected before the war and he didn't cooperate with reconstruction which cemented his legend. He did have one really strong run from early 1862 to early 1863. Anyone who studies the 1864 campaign will see that Grant certainly did try to maneuver but there just wasn't enough room. He had to get Lee into battle and when he couldn't find a way to goad him into an attack he had to do it himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:07
|
|
Panzeh posted:Lee was well respected before the war and he didn't cooperate with reconstruction which cemented his legend. He did have one really strong run from early 1862 to early 1863. Also, he knew Sherman was crushing in the West, and wanted to pin down forces on his front to stop the west from being reinforced. Sherman knew that Lincoln couldn't get re-elected if there was bloodletting on both fronts, though, and continued his war of manoeuvre without stacking up Union casualties. So both generals gave each-other a free hand, while simultaneously ensuring Lincoln wouldn't lose re-election. That's basically why they were such a good double-act. Sherman and Grant both saw the big picture with great clarity.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Speaking of the Civil War, I've often heard/read from more informed people that George Thomas is maybe the most under-appreciated general of the war. Is this true? I'm aware I can just read wikipedia but I like reading what you guys write. It's complicated. The biggest reason why Thomas is underappreciated is that he didn't bother fighting in the war of the words after the actual war was over. Grant's memoirs, for example, have informed a lot of the secondary literature to the detriment of generals like Thomas who had a poor personal relationship with Grant. Thomas won battles (well, one battle*), but it was an important one. He gets a lot of flak from Grant fans, rightly so in my opinion, for taking loving forever to actually get around to doing anything. After Chickamauga, it took Grant's arrival to get the ball rolling on resupplying the Army of the Cumberland, and Thomas was very rarely willing to agree to an offensive. Though it was Thomas'army that captured Missionary Ridge, it did so on its own initiative, and not due to any of Thomas' orders (or Grant's, to be fair). Thomas' delays around Nashville nearly got him relieved. Grant, watching from Virginia, was worried that Hood's army might bypass Nashville entirely and make for the Ohio, provoking a retreat similar to that of fall 1862. With hindsight we know that wasn't going to happen, but it looked like a real possibility with the fog of war. After Nashville, Thomas had no major role in the war. His units were largely sent off to other commands, like Canby's for the Mobile campaign and Wilson's to fight Forrest. Grant wanted aggressive generals, and Thomas wasn't suitable. He was no war-winner. * Nobody cares about Mill Springs. MikeCrotch posted:Can someone educate a poor limey on what exactly is supposed to have made Lee a great general? Pretty much all I know is that he lost Gettysburg and was highly rated. Can anyone shed some more light on why people thought he was good and whether he was actually competent in reality? Dude won battles. He pretty much ran circles around the Army of the Potomac from June 1862 to June 1863. Modern historians put more empasis than previous generations on the horrific intra-army political situation in the AotP, the poor relationship between Washington and the various commanders Lee fought, and the difficulty the Federals faced with the strategic offensive than on Lee's generalship as reasons for his success. Lee has also been criticized for taking ridiculous risks for little potential gain, for very poor staff usage, and for being unable to deal with bad subordinates. But it's hard to argue with sucess, and the Seven Days through Chancellorsville had some pretty spectacular successes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Strategically, he was pretty badly out of date. He believed very strongly in the "decisive battle" and was always seeking said battle, not really understanding the effects that industrialization and conscription had on warfare. Side note that: This is a bit gay black Hitler, but while the Union may have had a basically unstoppable advantage in manpower, materiel, and industry, might the Confederates have been able to pull off a victory if they'd managed a quick capture of Washington DC early in the war? Given that most people were predicting a short war, such a dramatic reversal seems to a layman like it might have conceivably convinced the US to stop fighting, or foreign governments that the South was worth supporting. Addendum to that: WAS there a chance of the Confederates taking Washington early?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Side note that: This is a bit gay black Hitler, but while the Union may have had a basically unstoppable advantage in manpower, materiel, and industry, might the Confederates have been able to pull off a victory if they'd managed a quick capture of Washington DC early in the war? Given that most people were predicting a short war, such a dramatic reversal seems to a layman like it might have conceivably convinced the US to stop fighting, or foreign governments that the South was worth supporting. The problem with attacking DC is that it really couldn't be approached from the south because of the Union control of the Potomac river, so any attack would have to be done via an upstream crossing. This pretty much eliminated it as a possibility early in the war, and later on it became the most fortified city in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Side note that: This is a bit gay black Hitler, but while the Union may have had a basically unstoppable advantage in manpower, materiel, and industry, might the Confederates have been able to pull off a victory if they'd managed a quick capture of Washington DC early in the war? Given that most people were predicting a short war, such a dramatic reversal seems to a layman like it might have conceivably convinced the US to stop fighting, or foreign governments that the South was worth supporting. There was a slight chance, because the Confederates pushed hard to take D.C. early since they knew it was their best chance of victory, but the Union mobilized fast enough to stop them from besieging the capital. After that failed, the plan changed to fighting hard enough to make Lincoln lose the 1864 elections, then negotiating independence with McLellan. That didn't work either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Pretty much the only time DC could have been captured was in the first few weeks of the war when pro-Confederate Marylanders cut the rail lines to the city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Side note that: This is a bit gay black Hitler, but while the Union may have had a basically unstoppable advantage in manpower, materiel, and industry, might the Confederates have been able to pull off a victory if they'd managed a quick capture of Washington DC early in the war? Given that most people were predicting a short war, such a dramatic reversal seems to a layman like it might have conceivably convinced the US to stop fighting, or foreign governments that the South was worth supporting. They'd probably run into a Stalingrad-style meat grinder before capturing DC. Lincoln had a good grasp of the politics of the war but it's an open question whether the loss of DC would have boosted or harmed political support for the war. Would it have been a Pearl Harbor-level outrage? I like to think Lincoln would have taken a gamble and committed to a bloody defense of the city, maybe bleeding the confederate forces dry in the process, but then again the confederates likely would have retreated before taking those kinds of losses. My guess: long siege, Lincoln gets replaced by a proslavery unionist in the next election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Kanine posted:If you had a time machine that could only travel back in time and return once, and you could only observe and not interact: what is the one time and place you would want to go back to? Since I can't interact with things, which handily prevents me from doing stuff like flip open lost ancient artifacts to see what was in them, I'd go to the point when that weird wall-less tower in Proto-Jericho was build. Archaeological evidence suggests that that thing just kind of stood there in the middle of the community without a visible purpose. I want to know what that thing was supposed to be there for, if not for a wall. Was it a temple-structure, or a larger version of the death-towers build by the Proto-Arabic nomads trading copper with Babylon?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Since I can't interact with things, which handily prevents me from doing stuff like flip open lost ancient artifacts to see what was in them, I'd go to the point when that weird wall-less tower in Proto-Jericho was build. Archaeological evidence suggests that that thing just kind of stood there in the middle of the community without a visible purpose. I want to know what that thing was supposed to be there for, if not for a wall. Was it a temple-structure, or a larger version of the death-towers build by the Proto-Arabic nomads trading copper with Babylon? same but the roman d20s
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
I don't see how the Confederates take DC without a navy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I don't see how the Confederates take DC without a navy. Yeah, the part of the Potomac in front of DC could be well-patrolled by Union gunboats. The only way the Confederates get to DC is crossing the Potomac upstream and coming down on DC from the north. This was outside the capability of the Confederate army in 1861.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:A lot of milhistorians are pretty loving harsh on Lee these days. Lee has become a mythical figure because of the way he behaved after the war, and what he represented to the South. In fact, this very fresh article sort of explains it. I've never heard of Grant being referred to as an embarrassment before, but then again I'm no historian. This is pretty surprising to me regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, the part of the Potomac in front of DC could be well-patrolled by Union gunboats. The only way the Confederates get to DC is crossing the Potomac upstream and coming down on DC from the north. This was outside the capability of the Confederate army in 1861. I see that Potomac froze in 1884. Arguably a time travelling gay black Jefferson Davis should have delayed the rebellion some twenty years later so Army of Virginia could have pulled a Charles X Gustav on Union. esn2500 posted:I've never heard of Grant being referred to as an embarrassment before, but then again I'm no historian. This is pretty surprising to me regardless. Grant is like someone tried to describe Winston Churchill based on what he misremembered from a History Channel program he once saw: a highly proficient military leader who drank way too much and sucked in the political arena in large part because he chose bad henchmen and gave them free hands. Oh and Grant also won the election after winning a war, Churchill lost the election after winning a war. At least they both had WW2 tanks named after them. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
esn2500 posted:I've never heard of Grant being referred to as an embarrassment before, but then again Fixed that for you. (  )maybe you do have family from the South but IME that is where the Lost Cause apologia and Grant-hating comes from
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I see that Potomac froze in 1884. Arguably a time travelling gay black Jefferson Davis should have delayed the rebellion some twenty years later so Army of Virginia could have pulled a Charles X Gustav on Union. I don't think armies of the day conducted large scale movement during the winter and in snow, did they? So if they did that they would probably just get stuck in mud and/or freeze to death, let alone take a fortified city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I don't think armies of the day conducted large scale movement during the winter and in snow, did they? So if they did that they would probably just get stuck in mud and/or freeze to death, let alone take a fortified city. Washington DC is hardly Moscow, though. It's the same lattitude as Lisbon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:11
|
|