ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

So, like, I'm swedish. And what I know of Gustav den andre Adolf is also hugely affected by my personal background. To be frank, I've never read anything that even comes close as criticism of the man (compared to his contemporaries)...

quote:

Hey Gal, is there somewhere I can read up on the critique? Because that seems a fuckton more interesting than reading another, possibly tainted, hero-epic.

HEY GAL posted:

Yeah, when I was a child I got "The Thirty Years' War was a great tragedy and it was mostly Protestants' fault." Sorry.

(1) Of his alleged military innovations: Most modern works on the Thirty Years' War say that he didn't do a bunch of the things he's been credited with doing (like invent the cartridge box and supply all his soldiers with lighter muskets), place the things he did do within their context (mixing musketeers with his cavalry turns out to have been a defensive measure against cavalry, which he picked up in Poland), or reevaluate the things his enemies did (Spanish tactics are now respected).

Peter Wilson's The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy goes into this, as well as the newest books that discuss what's called in English the "Military Revolution." If you can read German I'll PM you a book on Spanish tactics that I really like.

(2) Of the moral status of his deeds and those of his armies: Honestly I don't really remember a single work that critiques this, my opinions are the result of putting bits and pieces together, mostly from works that dealt primarily with other topics. Did he believe he was in the right? Sure, lots of people did. Was he pious? No doubt. Were his people as pious as he was and unusually well disciplined?

blackmongoose posted:

On a related note, HEY GAL, what's your opinion on Torstensson and/or do you know any good sources about his campaigns? I know the basic outlines (2nd Breitenfeld, turning around and beating up the Danes, then moving down to the Danube), but I haven't seen nearly the amount of stuff on the Swedish army under his command as is devoted to Gustav, despite the fact that his campaigns seem equally if not more successful.

HEY GAL posted:

Peter Wilson's The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy goes into this, as well as the newest books that discuss what's called in English the "Military Revolution." If you can read German I'll PM you a book on Spanish tactics that I really like.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Note: I believe there is an error with this entry, in my book. The complete round weighs less than the projectile (filled and fuze) which is impossible. In pounds, it gives the round at 4.75 and the projectile at 3.25. Using a mass converter, 3.25lb is the equivalent of 1.47kg.

Ardent Communist posted:

I do like how the basic tactics of warfare haven't really changed much in thousand of years. By which I mean, having a line of resistance, with skirmishers or scouts in front, having to worry bout your flanks, trying to hold an enemy's attention with conflict in the front while attempting to flank. I mean, they came up with fire and maneuver during WW1, I believe, but really it's the same as Alexander using his phalanx to fix the enemy and his Companion Cavalry to hit them in the flank. The technology has changed the amount of men necessary, but the basics are the same.

chitoryu12 posted:

Considering how weirdly the Japanese handled their munitions, I would legitimately only be slightly surprised if they made a round that violated natural laws somewhat.

Mortabis posted:

The Potomac is only navigable up to Georgetown so I assume you don't mean with boats? And in all my time living in Fairfax I can't remember ever seeing the Potomac freeze.

e: for instance, I was in downtown Washington in December when we had that ridiculously cold day and the Metro tracks froze, and the river wasn't frozen.

Fangz posted:

I can't agree with this, unless you really only look in the very very abstract sense. Even in the same era, the likes of the Mongols had a very different idea of how to fight wars than their enemies.

Ardent Communist posted:

Similar to how the knights of the aristocracy were not overthrown until the masses had the weapons (pikes and the like) and the tactics to combat them

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

That's, uh... not what happened. I don't even know what the knights of the aristocracy being "overthrown" would entail, because it sounds like you're conflating tactical and sociopolitical developments.

the JJ posted:

End of aristocratic warfare in Europe~16th century.

Overthrow of last major aristocracy... early 19th with the Romanovs, would you say? Or count the Junkers too, about the same time period.

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

That's, uh... not what happened. I don't even know what the knights of the aristocracy being "overthrown" would entail, because it sounds like you're conflating tactical and sociopolitical developments.

the JJ posted:

End of aristocratic warfare in Europe~16th century.

HEY GAL posted:

The reason people in my period almost never do anything during winter (about Nov-March) isn't the cold or the snow, it's that the grass isn't growing yet. I don't know later periods as well, but I thought that after people invent the magazine this is less of a problem.

Ardent Communist posted:

The technology has changed the amount of men necessary, but the basics are the same.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Next time: 70mm Projectiles, including one that was a Hollow Charge projectile fired from a Howitzer!

Magni posted:

Nothing about that. HEAT rounds don't care about their impact velocity, so they're the preferred way to give low-velocity howitzers the ability to engage tanks over open sights if necessary. The Soviets kept issuing a few HEAT shells to all their 122mm and 152mm guns and SPGs throughout the Cold War.

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

I've read some very serious arguments (which I agree with at least to some degree) that the militarized aristocracy was co-opted into the officers and cavalry of early modern armies and continued on from there. This is especially apparent when looking at things like the pre-Civil War South, but was originally a European phenomenon.

Magni posted:

Nothing about that. HEAT rounds don't care about their impact velocity, so they're the preferred way to give low-velocity howitzers the ability to engage tanks over open sights if necessary. The Soviets kept issuing a few HEAT shells to all their 122mm and 152mm guns and SPGs throughout the Cold War.

Ensign Expendable posted:

The great thing about 152 mm shells is that you're going to get wrecked regardless of what type of shell you get hit with.

StashAugustine posted:

Jobbo_Fett posted:

It just struck me as weird, since I don't believe they have HEAT rounds for any of their tank guns (But I may have just not gotten to that part yet). Not to mention that Hollow Charge projectile technology was something given to them by the Germans from what I've read or is mentioned in the manual.

One of the 70mm HEAT rounds tested managed to penetrate 3 inches of naval plate, so there's that.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

It just struck me as weird, since I don't believe they have HEAT rounds for any of their tank guns (But I may have just not gotten to that part yet). Not to mention that Hollow Charge projectile technology was something given to them by the Germans from what I've read or is mentioned in the manual.

One of the 70mm HEAT rounds tested managed to penetrate 3 inches of naval plate, so there's that.

Tomn posted:

Modern Era: Man, I don't even know. Something something over-the-horizon missiles that can't be effectively stopped, I think? Also electronic warfare? Maybe railguns will bring battleships back? Though that's all theorycrafting anyways, it's not like anybody has fought a major naval engagement recently.

nothing to seehere posted:

On that note: Apart from the Falklands War, has there been any naval engagements anywhere since WW2? As far as I know, the Argentinian Navy at the time was essentially old WW2 ships, and all it provided was that aircraft are still dangerous to fleets, but they can be fought off, the same things learnt in WW2 essentially.

Rincewind posted:

That last bit about Sulzbach was interesting, since I've never really known much about the civilians in the parts of France Germany was occupying. How was the territory run in general?

Kaal posted:

Indeed Sherman's troops are of course well-known for their ability to live off the land through organized deployment of "bummers" in the vanguard of the main forces.

nothing to seehere posted:

As far as I know, the Argentinian Navy at the time was essentially old WW2 ships, and all it provided was that aircraft are still dangerous to fleets, but they can be fought off, the same things learnt in WW2 essentially.

Kaal posted:

As far as the American Civil War goes, while there was extensive use of rail and supply depots to keep the troops mobilized (particularly in the East), animal feed remained something that all sides generally relied on the land for (in fact they simply called it forage). In fact Grant mentions this fact specifically in his comments about meeting Lee at Appomattox Courthouse, for when Lee asks for supplies for his troops and horses, Grant replies that he's happy to supply train-borne rations but they were using forage themselves for the cavalry and didn't have any feed available. This was balanced by the fact that it was largely an infantry-dominated conflict, with the cavalry largely relegated to skirmishing and reconnaissance. Indeed Sherman's troops are of course well-known for their ability to live off the land through organized deployment of "bummers" in the vanguard of the main forces. Indeed Sherman himself remarked that his troops were better fed during the Atlanta Campaign than when they were tied to their supply chain. Of course much of that is due to largely operating during the harvest season throughout that campaign. Things were tougher by the Fall, as they began to close on Savannah, but they'd been toughened by the long months of marching, and by the time Winter hit they were able to hook back up with naval supply boats. Besides which, they were largely unopposed throughout the campaign - things would have gone harder for them if the Confederates hadn't assumed that Sherman's armies were stuck in the West and left only a token force to defend.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Not to mention that Hollow Charge projectile technology was something given to them by the Germans from what I've read or is mentioned in the manual.

quote:

Stielgranate 42 was different in fundamental ways from ordinary shells. The driving rod was loaded into the muzzle so that the finned projectile remained in front of, and outside, the barrel entirely. A special charge was loaded and would propel the projectile about 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) downrange. At about 150 metres (160 yd) distance, the driving rod would separate from the projectile. Unlike other Stielgranaten, this version was not intended for anti-tank use, but rather for the demolition of strongpoints and clearing barbed-wire obstacles and minefields by blast effect.

nothing to seehere posted:

On that note: Apart from the Falklands War, has there been any naval engagements anywhere since WW2? As far as I know, the Argentinian Navy at the time was essentially old WW2 ships, and all it provided was that aircraft are still dangerous to fleets, but they can be fought off, the same things learnt in WW2 essentially.

xthetenth posted:

Middle East mainly IIRC. Israel taking risks with an old ship and getting the Eilat sunk, coming back in the Yom Kippur War with missile boats and a modicum of combined forces and winning handily, and the Tanker War phase of the Iran-Iraq war through US escort ops into Operation Praying Mantis.

Frostwerks posted:

Wasn't there a battle in the (now) American Southwest between some native tribe and either Spanish or Mexican (cannot remember the era) involving a siege of like a fortified mesa or something that was only cracked when they brought cannon in? I think it's a current reservation but I cannot for the life of me remember the name.