|
Koesj posted:Hey Gal and/or other goons located in Germany/C-Europe: how is the BW military history museum in Dresden?
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:16 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:You know, when you think about it, it's Belgium that's the graveyard of empires rather than Afghanistan. Pretty much, the soil is rich because it has centuries of foreign soldiers of all kinds being buried in the drat stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Just to clarify, the Taiping soldiers in this period aren't particularly rapacious either. Since private property is heavily restricted, with any valuable goods turned over to the sacred treasury, there's little point in going off and plundering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:There's a part with replica American bombs pointed at a replica East German bunker lol The symbology in that is loving triggering me hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
So I'm skimming some military manuals to look for sources on the symbolic place of flags, and a bunch of them have neat illustrations.   Look at those tiny infantrymen behind the walls. You can't really hide a pikeman. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
we're always talking about underwater explosions http://i.imgur.com/Ihyk23j.gifv
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:we're always talking about underwater explosions Ensayo indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:You know, when you think about it, it's Belgium that's the graveyard of empires rather than Afghanistan. I'm sure there's some clever way this all can be tied back into the Belgian Congo, but I'm buggered if I can think what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I'm sure there's some clever way this all can be tied back into the Belgian Congo, but I'm buggered if I can think what it is. Not only graveyard of empires, but thanks to Leopold, an empire of graveyards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Look at those tiny infantrymen behind the walls. You can't really hide a pikeman. Well, if you looked as fabulous as they did, would you be trying to hide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Small-ish but charming. There's a part with replica American bombs pointed at a replica East German bunker lol Ok cool, I'll probably be going there with a friend in two weeks or so, on our way to the shooting ranges of perfidious Czechia 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
You'll visit the Türkische Kammer in Dresden, and you will like it alot. You will also take alot of pictures there and post them here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Hargrimm posted:Not only graveyard of empires, but thanks to Leopold, an empire of graveyards. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Remember those nice and clean looking reproduction WWI trenches that were posted a few weeks ago? This is what trenches look like when you don't put quite a much effort into them. Ukrainian positions at Mariupol. When digging trenches, remember that it might rain at some point!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Remember those nice and clean looking reproduction WWI trenches that were posted a few weeks ago? This is what trenches look like when you don't put quite a much effort into them. From what I saw of combat footage, the trenches have been very hastily dug with little to no amenities like duckboard floors. They're barely a step above the "almost not even there" British trenches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTRaUN4pFLY
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Most if not all fortifications in that war that I've seen so far appear to be more for occupying the troops than actually protecting them from anything. Even ones built in areas with no fighting are incredibly sloppy and rather useless.
Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Most if not all fortifications in that was that I've seen so far appear to be more for occupying the troops than actually protecting them from anything. Even ones built in areas with no fighting are incredibly sloppy and rather useless. Old Soviet joke: "Private, go dig a trench from here to lunchtime!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Old Soviet joke: "Private, go dig a trench from here to lunchtime!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
By the way, if anyone's interested in what Blackadder Goes Forth might have looked like if it had instead been Le Adder Noire en l'Afrique, you could do worse than checking out the 1976 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film, Black and White in Colour, which some helpful fellow has uploaded to a popular video-sharing website with English subtitles. Capsule review: it's 1915 in French Equatorial Africa, and we join the inhabitants of a sleepy border outpost who are happily trading with Zee Germans and robbing the locals when the first mail for six months arrives and the population discovers that they're supposed to be at war. Hilarity ensues, with the sizeable African cast on hand to keep poking fun at how ridiculous it is. Although my biggest laugh was completely unintentional; the print of the film apparently included subtitles for the songs - at one point there's a rendition of La Marseillaise and the period subs render the last two lines as "All hearts resolved / On Liberty or Death" instead of the more accurate/horticulturally unsound translation. It's a great film with an absolute corker of an ending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So I'm skimming some military manuals to look for sources on the symbolic place of flags, and a bunch of them have neat illustrations. can someone explain why a lot of old forts were in such weird shapes like this? ive seen it a lot but i have no idea why
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Kanine posted:can someone explain why a lot of old forts were in such weird shapes like this? ive seen it a lot but i have no idea why So they wouldn't have any areas not covered by fire - once the enemy is close enough to the foot of your wall, you can't fire at him head-on, so there's all these angles where your guys can fire sideways at him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Kanine posted:can someone explain why a lot of old forts were in such weird shapes like this? ive seen it a lot but i have no idea why They're called star forts, and the short version is that they are easier to defend. A flat, perpendicular wall is comparatively easier to destroy because they were generally made of stone, which is vulnerable to artillery. A star fort would have usually been mostly earth, very thick, and lower to the ground, which helps absorb artillery fire much more effectively. In addition, a perpendicular wall is easier to undermine if an attacking force is able to make it to the walls. Earth walls are easy to climb though, so that's why you have the ditch. Finally, the points of the star allow artillery or men to defend the walls and the other points from any attempts to scale them. Many would have been much more elaborate than the ones in those pictures, some with multiple layers of varying elevation, outer forts, etc. FAUXTON posted:So they wouldn't have any areas not covered by fire - once the enemy is close enough to the foot of your wall, you can't fire at him head-on, so there's all these angles where your guys can fire sideways at him. Also this Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So they wouldn't have any areas not covered by fire - once the enemy is close enough to the foot of your wall, you can't fire at him head-on, so there's all these angles where your guys can fire sideways at him. Plus there's no corners where the attackers are at a weird angle to the defenders, if you try to approach one of the points dead on, the neighboring points have a flat wall that can pour fire on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Kanine posted:can someone explain why a lot of old forts were in such weird shapes like this? ive seen it a lot but i have no idea why is that a goony enough analogy
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of depictions of lance-wielding cavalry in popular culture? Why would that be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Discounting depictions of jousting, which, I admit, is kind of a cheat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of depictions of lance-wielding cavalry in popular culture? Why would that be? Probably cinematography reasons to blame. Tracking a cavalry charge is pretty hard to track with a camera without way more effort than getting in close and slashing. Also liability come to think of it. Slapping a blunt sword onto a guy's cuirass and pretending he's dead is quite safe compared to faking hundreds of pounds of horse and dude backing up a skinny thing driven at speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:By the way, if anyone's interested in what Blackadder Goes Forth might have looked like if it had instead been Le Adder Noire en l'Afrique, you could do worse than checking out the 1976 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Film, Black and White in Colour, which some helpful fellow has uploaded to a popular video-sharing website with English subtitles. Thanks for the recommendation, I just watched it. drat good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Probably cinematography reasons to blame. Tracking a cavalry charge is pretty hard to track with a camera without way more effort than getting in close and slashing. Edit: Tevery Best posted:Well, if you looked as fabulous as they did, would you be trying to hide?  STEALTH HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Do you want to make the audience motion sick?????
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of depictions of lance-wielding cavalry in popular culture? Why would that be? Because you don't watch Eastern European films. (apologies for the awful quality) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxVWNqT53WI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca31-pDSiMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETW9QWUAhRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI66ZNFYTXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08FwwSrJbl0 (I tried to find some in 1612, but that film is awful and I'm not watching it again just to look for some decent scenes)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Many would have been much more elaborate than the ones in those pictures, some with multiple layers of varying elevation, outer forts, etc. Those are outer forts, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of depictions of lance-wielding cavalry in popular culture? Why would that be? Waterloo from the 70's had lance wielding cavalry on film, particularly in this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po A lot of the problem is that wielding a lance on horseback isn't really a skill anymore, so it's difficult to get a bunch of people who can do it to put together an effective charge . People do still do joust reenactment, so getting some people for that isn't so hard. The reason they could do such big cavalry scenes in Waterloo is that the director hired a chunk of the Soviet army to spend months training in Napoleonic drill and horseback riding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Those are outer forts, aren't they? 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Aha, cool! So are those earthworks facing toward the besieged fortification or outward à la Alesia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
100 Years Ago After the recent success of "BLOW THE FUCKER UP FROM UNDERNEATH!" at Hill 60 (and in many places on the French front), the BEF continues its housekeeping operations around Ypres with plans to do the same thing at Hooge, where the line has gone so wonky that men are taking friendly fire from their own blokes shooting at Germans in front of them. Major Cowan of the Tunnelling Companies also complains at length about paranoia caused by improper listening techniques, and shows us how to do it properly. And, on Gallipoli, Kenneth Best continues his attempt to give Louis Barthas a run in the Grognard Stakes (handicap, 3 1/2 miles, over jumps, and the going very heavy) as he encounters more dimwitted officers and loses his pipe into the bargain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Aha, cool! So are those earthworks facing toward the besieged fortification or outward à la Alesia? Edit: Except for that one little thing in the bottom left, where the besiegers have put some cannon on the high ground near that hornwork and ravelin across the river from the besieged city and entrenched in front of them. Which reminds me: according to Clausewitz, people just stopped doing this during the 18th/19th century. He says it's no other reason than "fashion"--was there a doctrinal reason people didn't fortify their siege lines any more in the 1790s? 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Every time I see any hill numbers on the Western Front I need to remind myself that Hill 60 refers to 60 feet not meters. Flanders is loving flat, yo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
On the Western Front, numbered hills are taken from French or Belgian military surveys, which reckoned in metres. (It's still insignificant enough to be easily missed by inexperienced battlefield tourists because it's on a wide ridge; the crest of Hill 60 itself was at the time about 46 metres above the surrounding ground and now is somewhat lower.) In other places it's rather more of a free-for-all; there's a Hill 60 on Gallipoli near Suvla Bay, which is nothing like either 60 feet or 60 metres high by any sane reckoning, but is closer to 60m. On the other hand, just north of ANZAC Cove they were using feet when they named Baby 700 (overestimated by about 120ft) and Hill 971 (underestimated by about 30ft, but it didn't matter since they never got near enough to find out). Due to not having any maps worth the name, they were all named by much the same methods as might be used at a "Guess the weight of this watermelon/pig/granny" competition at a summer fete. edit: Did y'all realise that the British Empire had the period equivalent of a nuclear football in 1914? From the Official Naval History: quote:Special arrangements were made so that in every office responsible officials should be ready at all hours to take immediate action. The requisite telegrams - amounting to thousands – were carefully arranged in order of priority for dispatch in order to prevent congestion on the day of action; every possible letter and document was kept ready in an addressed envelope; special envelopes were designed so that they could be at once recognised as taking priority of everything. All necessary papers, orders-in-council and proclamations were printed or set up in type, and so far was the system carried that the King never moved without having with him those which required his immediate signature. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
On the subject of WWI and mapping, the BBC did a 10min radio bit on the development of the Ordnance Survey and the logistics involved in mapping the war (hint: a whole lot of printing). The whole series on Wartime Innovation that this is a part of has a bunch of short but interesting segments on overlooked things that came from the Great War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 18:17
|
|