Disinterested posted:Sgt. Hakeswill has a pike, and when Harper's shotgun is taken away he complains that Hakeswill should not have a pike either, since it's 'batallion company frippery'. Ooooh. Not read the books in over a decade. I keep meaning too, but I got the Copperhead US Civil War stuff I bought last year to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:11 |
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Ooooh. Not read the books in over a decade. I keep meaning too, but I got the Copperhead US Civil War stuff I bought last year to do. It's in the show, lord knows if it's in the books.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
I did learn this afternoon that you use pikemen to guard munitions wagons in the 17th century, which I hadn't known but which makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Where would one find specific recruitment numbers for the American Civil War, broken down on a conscript vs. volunteer basis and with listings for each state?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Where would one find specific recruitment numbers for the American Civil War, broken down on a conscript vs. volunteer basis and with listings for each state? I'm reading Battle Cry of Freedom right now. McPherson cites a ton of studies on the topic. Here are the three that I found in the first footnote in the section I flipped to- Fred A. Shannon, The Organization and Administration of the Union Army, 1861-1865 Eugene C. Murdock, Patriotism Limited 1862-1865: The Civil War Draft and the Bounty System Eugene C. Murdock, One Million Men: The Civil War Draft in the North He uses these to look at stuff like conscript vs. volunteer, occupation before enlistment and so on. He doesn't get too detailed on a state-by-state basis, but I'm guessing that stuff is in his sources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I did learn this afternoon that you use pikemen to guard munitions wagons in the 17th century, which I hadn't known but which makes perfect sense. Why not just use musketeers? The ammunition is right there and [accidental explosion].
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Why not just use musketeers? The ammunition is right there and [accidental explosion]. They did use guys with flintlocks for that (back when flintlocks were more expensive than matchlocks) so to avoid the whole "open fire next to black powder" thing. And that's the origin of the Fusiliers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:so to avoid the whole "open fire next to black powder" thing.  In other news, I like to imagine armies "foraging" as like this:  And that's why towns paid HEY GAL's guys to go around the town and forage in the next town down the road. (There's a better representation of what they do to a town in the next shot, but it's a terrible '50s racist caricature, so I couldn't bring myself to gif it. Though I apparently accidentally left one frame of it in, so you know how it's going to go.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 09:55
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Now I really want to see Bugs Bunny vs the Landsknechts, with Stockings-wearing Sam in charge of them. 100 Years Ago In Tanzania, Indian Expeditionary Force "D" brushes aside slim enemy opposition to capture the hills outside Bukoba. Back in Europe, the Italians are ready to take a light summer hike to Trieste, and the French Council of Ministers is starting to rumble unpleasantly in the direction of General Joffre (although that may just have been the garlic eclairs). I'm also pondering why a newspaper in a country with so few private cars has so many adverts for car tyres...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:And that's why towns paid HEY GAL's guys to go around the town and forage in the next town down the road. HEY GAL posted:Anyway, things for which my subjects' employers will accept...ahem...gifts include:
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
my dad posted:I think it trying to say that Vietnam that had vastly inferior forces and beat superior forces like the US and the Mongols. The American South isn't Vietnam, though, in terrain or population. How exactly would the southern guerillas function/survive/get food once the North freed all the slaves (who know the local area and are not exactly going to be pro-guerilla)? How many white Southerners were Unionist sympathisers, ditto?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Is it just me, or are those bribes quite large?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Is it just me, or are those bribes quite large? Your average musketeer in the '20s, at least according to the rolls I've seen, makes six or seven of those per month; pikemen (unless they're nobles or something) make around eight to twelve
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The American South isn't Vietnam, though, in terrain or population. How exactly would the southern guerillas function/survive/get food once the North freed all the slaves (who know the local area and are not exactly going to be pro-guerilla)? How many white Southerners were Unionist sympathisers, ditto? The sheer vastness of the area in question would probably work to the advantage of the rebels, supposing that there are enough Confederate die-hards to form an ideological nucleus of resistance in the same was as Mao's Red Army, they could probably survive the same way Mao did. Without B52s or helicopters, you can outrun your pursuers indefinitely by just walking slightly faster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Mao's guerrillas and the likes of the Viet Cong were lower class demographics, who were used to living out in the wilds, and formed connections with the local poor farmers to obtain support. The core of Confederate support came however from the upper class. They have way too much to lose to run off and be fighters. The closest you can see to guerrilla warfare was the likes of the KKK. Paraphrasing Mao, it's not about the terrain, it's about the sea of popular support the guerrillas swim in. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:In other news, I like to imagine armies "foraging" as like this: whatconfederatsthinkshermanliterallydid.gif
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Is it just me, or are those bribes quite large? No, they're quite large. I did a quick and dirty attempt to translate the last one to modern money and... ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:basically Wolf Pelion on Ossa got around $187,000 for "nothing particular". Also none of you savages appreciated my Pelion on Ossa joke 
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:No, they're quite large. I did a quick and dirty attempt to translate the last one to modern money and... quote:Also none of you savages appreciated my Pelion on Ossa joke HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:you can't compare period money to the modern price of gold or silver, you have to compare it to things like the cost of basic consumer goods or the pay of what people in various jobs make. even so those bribes are, indeed, fukken huge By your estimation, where the bribes still good value for the cities? Were armies likely to do MORE damage than that simply by being nearby?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Mao's guerrillas and the likes of the Viet Cong were lower class demographics, who were used to living out in the wilds, and formed connections with the local poor farmers to obtain support. The core of Confederate support came however from the upper class. They have way too much to lose to run off and be fighters. The closest you can see to guerrilla warfare was the likes of the KKK. The long march also resulted in ~90% casualties to Mao's force, he had an area the size of China to march in, an isolated mountainous border region to hide in, the fact that his opponents were the Chinese government in the 30's and the small matter of a Japanese invasion drawing attention away from him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? I apologize in advance for the vagueness of that question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:40
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? A meteor hits the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? Yes 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? Probably a scenario that doesn't involve the Germans screwing themselves over and the Allies blundering more than they did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
WW2 Data We continue our look at Soviet mortar shells, taking a look at the 107mm Mountain-Pack Mortar shells, as well as the largest mortar shell the Soviets have in their arsenal. And for the Japanese, we examine the various 75mm projectiles they had in use. It's pretty interesting to see that there were 7cm, 7cm and 8cm rounds, but the first two were both designated 7cm despite being 70mm and 75mm, while the 8cm was actually 76.2mm. And even though they were similar, they were not interchangeable. Edit: forgot to hit publish 
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Probably a scenario that doesn't involve the Germans screwing themselves over and the Allies blundering more than they did. I'm pretty sure screwing themselves is a central tenet of the national socialist ideology. It's like how Nazi materiel is super appealing to armchair generals and easily excited amateurs because it was literally designed to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Mao's guerrillas and the likes of the Viet Cong were lower class demographics, who were used to living out in the wilds, and formed connections with the local poor farmers to obtain support. The core of Confederate support came however from the upper class. They have way too much to lose to run off and be fighters. The closest you can see to guerrilla warfare was the likes of the KKK. The majority of the peoples of Appalachians, for example, weren't in the least interested in supporting secession and obviously neither were the blacks. It's hard to be an effective guerrilla when most of the population in the areas where you could most effectively operate would rather see you hang. Also, Brown in Georgia was one of those nuts who thought that more fractured and compartmentalized the south was the stronger it would be (States Rights, yo!). He actively worked against Davis on most things related to the war effort and by his example led many other prominent southerners down the same path. That he dreamed up and enacted a scheme where southern boys would defend Georgia with cold steel on the end of a pike in a war where armies measured their number of cannons on any particular battle field in the hundreds is hardly surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Splode posted:By your estimation, where the bribes still good value for the cities? Were armies likely to do MORE damage than that simply by being nearby? Lots of this is due to material interest, but some of it is also their self-perception as "ordered spaces" where that sort of thing just doesn't happen--I think I already quoted a city watch who picked up a soldier for the usual low-level war crimes with the words "Do you think you're in the countryside where you can abuse people with impunity?" It's not, or not just, that people are being mistreated, it's that the wrong people in the wrong place are being mistreated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? The following all have to happen: 1) Germany efficiently exploits all resources in acquired territory with minimal damage in acquisition. 2) They knock Russia out of the war early a la WWI. E.g. Barbarossa succeeds beyond all expectations and Stalin surrenders within weeks. 3) Britain comes to terms with Germany and stays out of the war. 4) US never institutes lend-lease or any other aid. 5) Japan never gets embargoed by the US. 6) Japan never attacks the US. Basically no, there's no way Germany would have won WWII unless they were somehow a provably better hegemonic option than Britain/Russia. Which they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of what effect a German capture of Moscow and taking out Stalin in the process would have had on the USSR? To me that seems to be pretty much the only way the Germans could have gotten a win in the East, providing capturing Moscow and the Soviet command structure would have actually caused anything like a Soviet collapse. Also, it seems to me that the Germans got a ton of breaks early in the war that let them go on such a ramapage, specifically: 1. Not having to go into Czechoslovakia thanks to Munich 2. The French and British giving up the ghost much easier than anyone expected on the continent 3. The Soviets being in the middle of the Red Army purges and still having a hosed up command structure. The only thing I can really think of that would have given the Germans a boost would have been getting their war industry in gear earlier and not building stupid poo poo, not that this was going to do them much good against the entire industrial might of the USSR in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
There's a pretty big gulf between getting into Moscow and taking it. See also: Stalingrad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Sov logistics would have taken a big hit if they'd made it to Moscow. I think the Germans would have had bigger advantages if they'd had more reliable allies but the Italians and others were just dead weight as well. But no there's no way.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? I don't think we should dismiss the role of random blind chance in war. We can talk, with the benefit of hindsight, about all the large systemic factors behind the allied victory, but it's not like the larger country/countries with more resources and manpower *always* wins in history. Sometimes random weird poo poo happens. There's always a possibility for Nazi Germany to win WWII, but there's not really any one simple factor that would make it likely. EDIT: I imagine if Frisch and Peierls didn't leave for the UK in 1933, meaning that the Nazis knew in 1939 that the true critical mass for Uranium-235 was only a few kilograms (not an unattainable value of several tons) while the allies did not, things could have proceeded very differently. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't think we should dismiss the role of random blind chance in war. We can talk, with the benefit of hindsight, about all the large systemic factors behind the allied victory, but it's not like the larger country/countries with more resources and manpower *always* wins in history. Sometimes random weird poo poo happens. There's always a possibility for Nazi Germany to win WWII, but there's not really any one simple factor that would make it likely. Yeah but that cuts both ways. For example, if the French army just gets its poo poo together rather than having Generals who sat about all day weeping then it's entirely possible that Guderian finds himself cut off and out of fuel and you end up with a re-run of WW1 on the Western Front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
How was artillery spotting done from aircraft in WWI? More specifically, how was communication done back to the ground in an age when radios would have been huge, heavy, delicate, power-hungry things that required a dedicated operator?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:47
|
|
hogmartin posted:How was artillery spotting done from aircraft in WWI? More specifically, how was communication done back to the ground in an age when radios would have been huge, heavy, delicate, power-hungry things that required a dedicated operator? In brief: badly, which is one of the main reasons for stalemate.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:How was artillery spotting done from aircraft in WWI? More specifically, how was communication done back to the ground in an age when radios would have been huge, heavy, delicate, power-hungry things that required a dedicated operator? In most cases observation was just taking pictures. Both sides put a lot of effort into developing the best possible cameras and techniques to process the images into useful targeting data. Eventually everyone figured out that multiple images taken from the same aircraft using different angles overlaid onto existing images of the terrain was the best way to establish target locations. In theory it wasn't all that different from how submarines ranges their targets through optics. Everyone eventually got very, very good at targeting static things, which is why the observation planes were top priority targets for both fighters and AAA. Observers didn't really have the ability to mensurate targets from the air so dynamic targeting like how we think of it today wasn't really possible, but they could estimate a target's distance from a reference point. Everyone tried to come up with various ways to communicate time sensitive data more quickly; air dropped messages were the obvious way, they also tried streamers and smoke. Eventually everyone had radios but even with radios it was a tricky process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of what effect a German capture of Moscow and taking out Stalin in the process would have had on the USSR? To me that seems to be pretty much the only way the Germans could have gotten a win in the East, providing capturing Moscow and the Soviet command structure would have actually caused anything like a Soviet collapse. Take Stalingrad and then add a network of huge, bomb-proof tunnels underneath, then fill every building worth a drat with explosives. Welcome to Moscow 1941, enjoy taking it while Stalin follows the rest of the government to Kuybishev.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah but that cuts both ways. For example, if the French army just gets its poo poo together rather than having Generals who sat about all day weeping then it's entirely possible that Guderian finds himself cut off and out of fuel and you end up with a re-run of WW1 on the Western Front. I dont think it was implied that it didn't cut both ways, just that the question asked specifically if a German victory was possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? There's two probable points of divergence: 1. Germany manages to hammer out a peace deal with Britain, perhaps the BEF is never rescued from Dunkirk and the Luftwaffe never switches to the Blitz and the RAF is beaten up and the combined drop in "national morale" sends them to the negotiation table. Germany still invades Russia later on because Hitler's still at the helm, but they have a better shot at it since they don't have the Western Front to worry about. 2. Barbarossa goes off much better than historical and they manage to capture Moscow, maybe even Leningrad, and that causes the collapse of the Soviet Union. In both cases, the real answer is that no, there is no scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WW2 because both of these scenarios involve a political reaction which we cannot reliably predict (insofar as no counter-factual can ever really be proven). There was no way that Germany could have physically occupied the British Home Islands, and while they maybe could have physically occupied the Soviet Union from the pre-war border to ... let's say Saratov, the Soviets weren't ever going to stop fighting short of some cataclysmic event like the Communist Rapture, so it's really just a question of time and casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:26
|
|