|
Alchenar posted:Setting up a melee army takes a fair bit of preparation as well. Any number of classical/medieval battles start and end with 'x was surprised and still encamped when y appeared on the field and did not have time to form up in battle formation properly' You know, that would be an interesting element to such a thought experiment. How fast can you get your poo poo together if you're surprised? If we put a Napoleonic army in camp on one hill and a Roman army in camp on another hill, who gets it together and onto the field first?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Setting up a melee army takes a fair bit of preparation as well. Any number of classical/medieval battles start and end with 'x was surprised and still encamped when y appeared on the field and did not have time to form up in battle formation properly' Yang Xiuqing recommends occasionally sounding alarms and telling your men the enemy is approaching, then a little later telling them false alarm, the lookout hosed up. That way you can time how long it takes them to get armed and in formation in a realistic situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:You know, that would be an interesting element to such a thought experiment. How fast can you get your poo poo together if you're surprised? If we put a Napoleonic army in camp on one hill and a Roman army in camp on another hill, who gets it together and onto the field first? I reckon the answer depends entirely on the commanders and the army and whether or not they're following best practice or not. The whole point of the set-piece Roman encampment is that no matter where he was in the world, a Roman legionary knew where his tent was and knew the exact steps he needed to take to get into formation when the alarm was sounded. Napoleonic armies range from camping in Roman style to, well, Howard at Chancellorsville.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I wish that was true, but MOST Americans don't even know what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, much less how the the war was fought. The declaration was signed in 1215 by King John, surrendering the Kingdom of America to the Good Protestant Chrsitians that were the founding fathers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I did an experiment in Civilization V, turns out Roman Legions are very hard to kill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YGXUWUs1eg
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Koreans are just as bizarre about that stuff. Every Korean anything is superior Korea invented everything from the wheel to internet etc. There can be some odd exceptions though, like it turns out many modern Koreans hate Korean-Confucianism. They blame Neo-Confucianism for the stagnation of the late Joseon dynasty and point to it at the cause of their fall into colonial occupation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yang Xiuqing recommends occasionally sounding alarms and telling your men the enemy is approaching, then a little later telling them false alarm, the lookout hosed up. That way you can time how long it takes them to get armed and in formation in a realistic situation. A practice still followed today. Usually just after you've nodded off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
I had a different take on that Dan Carlin quote. It was towards the beginning of his first on the WWI series. The impression I got from it was the Industrial Revolution made military capability and national stamina increase predictable and continuous. I thought it wasn't that Alexander The Great would have necessarily done better than Napoleon at Waterloo, but rather he would have similarly lost, whereas one could come up with some speculative scenario just a few years earlier where you could have dropped in some Macedonian phalanx, steppe horseman, and charismatic, bright leadership and had a victory. I grant it's a lot of a Gay Black Caeshitlerstein, and a complete oversimplifcation, while glossing over life's simple improvements in military strategy and technology over all the years between Alexander and the Industrial Revoltion. I think the idea was that you could drag somebody out from the past that could have looked at that situation and made something "respectable" out of it. I grudgingly agreed with the other half of it. That is, if we decided to make Waterloo be some time-traveling, epic battlefield, the strongest military 20 years later could show up and trounce anything that was there at the time, and anything 20 years later would trounce that immediate predecessor, and so on in a completely predictable sequence. We'd even get into contemporary times, where something like an immediate post-WWII army could get obliterated practically to a man by a nuclear power of the 60's. That 1960s military could probably even accept a handicap of having to all sit in chairs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:to accent what I think was background on the XYZ affair (I was working and only partially listening and since it was a diplomacy topic it kind of droned) The take I have on it is that in the US' infancy, it did not get much of any respect from European powers, even France--despite getting a lot of support from the French during the revolution. One thing early on that should have probably been clear is the US did not really get the finer business of diplomacy, namely, the bribery. When relations between Britain and France continued to sour, they both started seizing American shipping slated for either opponent. The US managed to generally sort things out with Britain, and then it became France's turn. They come along and find themselves in this bizarre game for delivering payments and bribes, with nothing really to show for it, especially given they didn't really walk into the whole thing with a ton of money in the first place. When the diplomatic mission got back home, everybody decided it was time to start blowing up French ships in the Caribbean (The Quasi War). The greater sum of the French government, oblivious to the whole thing, were wondering why America was so absolutely pissed at them. Hilarity ensued. Somebody was asking how long it took for Britain and the US to reconcile, and though the War of 1812 was a tricky thing, the Quasi War was funny because you had American warships  British warships, with the British selling spare ammo and letting the Americans join convoys.I suppose there at least was some consistency in the whole "not bribing" thing--or at least for as long as bribing was too expensive. The Barbary War happened a year or two afterwards over the US refusing to pay tribute money to the North African groups to guarantee safe passage of shipping. Given it would have been a non-trivial amount of money, it was kind of understood why they'd go for plan B. But given something of an inferiority complex the US was living under at the time, I guess it shouldn't have been that surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I think the idea was that you could drag somebody out from the past that could have looked at that situation and made something "respectable" out of it. If they were given lessons and classes on the current tech/weapons + associated tactics, sure. Its easy enough to say "Well, Alexander the Great was an extremely qualified commander", but it doesn't tackle anything regarding the immense gap from bow and arrows, spears, and shields to muskets, cannons, and shells or bullets. Provided the time difference between commander and conflict isn't too great, I would agree that a competent commander would be able to do something above the norm on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
100 Years Ago In the absence of the Major, an imam leads his battalion over the top at Gully Ravine, thus providing excellent competition for Kenneth Best in the running for Bravest/Stupidest Cleric 1915 awards. The fleet in the Akaika Channel finds the enemy at the end of it, Herbert Sulzbach is still having fun at home, and Louis Barthas begins a night so long it'll take a week to fully explore what happened. It begins, like most things in the war, with an explosion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Provided the time difference between commander and conflict isn't too great, I would agree that a competent commander would be able to do something above the norm on the spot. And, looking at how competent commanders of poorly equipped armies usually acted, they probably would have used the time to try to get some of that fancy new shooty stuff rather than fight outgunned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here, I whipped what I had on the Tiger II specifically into a semi-decent shape: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4IOAl6nZp3kdXpDLUxsQXlMd2M/view?usp=sharing This and the Tiger I post are both really great. I don't suppose you have one on the Panther as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I suppose there at least was some consistency in the whole "not bribing" thing--or at least for as long as bribing was too expensive. The Barbary War happened a year or two afterwards over the US refusing to pay tribute money to the North African groups to guarantee safe passage of shipping. Given it would have been a non-trivial amount of money, it was kind of understood why they'd go for plan B. But given something of an inferiority complex the US was living under at the time, I guess it shouldn't have been that surprising. Here's the thing. The US had built these big, heavy, *modern* frigates. Basically the equivalent of a new country today forming after a revolution and they first piece of military kit they produce is an Arleigh Burke. England wasn't really even building frigates of that size and class at the time. It's jumping into the game, not quite at the top but, not far off either. A huge investment of time, money and manpower and an impressive amount of forward power projection for the time. Meanwhile, the major powers are basically treating you like you need to beg not to be crushed under foot and the minor powers are taking their cue from that. The Barbary pirates (really, nation states) leave the major powers alone, mostly, but really can put the hurt on lesser countries. To the point that their bribes are economically crippling and whimsically administered. "Oh, you paid Ali X? Well I need X+10%. Yes, I know you just paid me a few months ago, so what?" And here you've got these new ships, even the lightest of which, is pretty much capable of smoking anything the Barbary states can put to sea. So, are you a punk? Or are you actually an independent nation capable of protecting and enforcing your interests and treaties and to be treated as such?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:One more thing on the US/French revolutionary connections: Lafayette kinda soured on the U.S. some after that didn't he? After he found out about the whole slavery thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I don't know about the podcast, but you might want to look that one up for a giggle. I feel like I'm really screwing this up but I'll give it a try: I think you'll find that money is far more important than lives and safety  While we haven't been at war with France, were we allied at any point before WWI, with official documentation? It's probably the nation with the longest friendly history with the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I did a straw poll with my coworkers a couple of years back. We're all American software engineers or similar, so college graduates. Out of 10 people, 4 didn't know who we fought the Revolutionary war against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I did a straw poll with my coworkers a couple of years back. We're all American software engineers or similar, so college graduates. Out of 10 people, 4 didn't know who we fought the Revolutionary war against. I've always wondered how questions like this would stack up to asking residents of other nations their past history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Morocco and the US go way the gently caress back, they're the first to recognize us and our longest unbroken treaty is with them dating back to 1777. During the Civil War they arrested Confederate diplomats for standing outside the US embassy and talking poo poo about the US and its flag, and told the local Confederate diplomat they couldn't talk with him about the situation because they didn't have formal relations with the CSA, and left it to Lincoln to order their release on behest of France. After that the King of Morocco formally ordered CSA ships be turned away. Bet not that many people would get that right if quizzed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Here's the thing. The US had built these big, heavy, *modern* frigates. Basically the equivalent of a new country today forming after a revolution and they first piece of military kit they produce is an Arleigh Burke. England wasn't really even building frigates of that size and class at the time. Um, well, not because England couldn't - it's not that the US had better naval tech at the time. It's more because it didn't need them because Britain was focused on maintaining sea superiority against continental powers like France. British frigates did light scouting; if a proper battle was going to happen then the navy would bust out proper ships of the line like HMS Victory, which could quite happily blow those US frigates into matchwood (which is why the US built big frigates that were fast enough to run away from them rather than the ships of the line it would need to actually contest and hold an area).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Morocco and the US go way the gently caress back, they're the first to recognize us and our longest unbroken treaty is with them dating back to 1777. Morocco, eh? Works for me. I judge potential alliances solely based upon food and alcohol, and Morocco gets an obvious pass there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Lafayette kinda soured on the U.S. some after that didn't he? After he found out about the whole slavery thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
One of the most interesting things about those early frigates was that the first post-revolution US Navy vessel in war service (or quasi-war service  ) was some upgunned merchantman previously covering trade in India called Ganges. The frigates were initially ordered in like 1794, but when peace broke out with Tripoli, they only had 3 done and the rest got put on hold because that's how you disengage from wartime production. By the time poo poo started getting serious with France they ended up resuming construction on the rest, but to fill the gap they bought and armed Ganges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Morocco and the US go way the gently caress back, they're the first to recognize us and our longest unbroken treaty is with them dating back to 1777. Yep, in fact the old American embassy in Morroco is the only U.S. National Historic Landmark that is situated on foreign soil, and was in fact the first American public property outside the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legation,_Tangier
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:cool stuff. Another question, did Grenadiers ever actually use Grenades? I always heard the title quickly became an honorific because grenades at the time were unreliable and ineffective, and that grenadiers were simple elite shock units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Um, well, not because England couldn't - it's not that the US had better naval tech at the time. It's more because it didn't need them because Britain was focused on maintaining sea superiority against continental powers like France. British frigates did light scouting; if a proper battle was going to happen then the navy would bust out proper ships of the line like HMS Victory, which could quite happily blow those US frigates into matchwood (which is why the US built big frigates that were fast enough to run away from them rather than the ships of the line it would need to actually contest and hold an area). No we genuinely couldn't. But it wasn't a matter of technology - Europe in 1800 is suffering from a lumber crisis as whole forests are devoured in the name of naval construction. You also can't just use any old wood in naval ships, you needed an expert to pick out trees of a specific size and shape to provide the necessary parts. Specialist lumber is a serious strategic asset - access to Russian and Swedish lumber for example was one of the main motivating factors in the Royal Navy expedition to the North Sea. Meanwhile in America the whole East Coast of the States is a vast untapped forest. The technical understanding of how to build wooden warships has basically peaked for everyone - the next innovation is going to be spaced hulls with iron plates to provide armour but that'll be a while. What the Constitution class of frigates benefits from is essentially the promise of limitless resources so the designers get to go wild. Yeah it's a frigate, but lets use Oak that in a European nation would be rationed jealously to keep ships of the line intact. 44 guns is heavy for any Frigate, but the stronger deck construction means that the ship can handle the weight and recoil of a heavier class of gun than an equivalent sized ship - so lets shove 24 pounders in rather than 18 pounders. Now you have a broadside that's only slightly less in power than a 74-gun ship of the line. The British reaction to Constitution was 'make no mistake, these aren't frigates, these are pocket battleships'. It was very well understood that they were built in order to contest British control of the Western Atlantic in any conflict. They couldn't stand up to a full ship of the line, but they don't need to when all the battleships are needed in the home waters facing off against France.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No we genuinely couldn't. But it wasn't a matter of technology - Europe in 1800 is suffering from a lumber crisis as whole forests are devoured in the name of naval construction. You also can't just use any old wood in naval ships, you needed an expert to pick out trees of a specific size and shape to provide the necessary parts. Specialist lumber is a serious strategic asset - access to Russian and Swedish lumber for example was one of the main motivating factors in the Royal Navy expedition to the North Sea. Isn't that basically what I'm saying? The Royal Navy prioritised ships of the line over making super-frigates, because it was facing off against France. If France wasn't a factor and its priority was America, it could a) use some of that admittedly precious oak for American-style frigates, or more likely b) use those ships of the line to establish British control of the Western Atlantic. The US frigates are nice ships and obviously a sensible choice given the US's strategic situation, don't get me wrong, but they're not something Britain didn't know how to make which is kind of how the OP came across.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I did an experiment in Civilization V, turns out Roman Legions are very hard to kill. Well that seemed conclusive enough. Debate solved! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Isn't that basically what I'm saying? The Royal Navy prioritised ships of the line over making super-frigates, because it was facing off against France. If France wasn't a factor and its priority was America, it could a) use some of that admittedly precious oak for American-style frigates, or more likely b) use those ships of the line to establish British control of the Western Atlantic. The US frigates are nice ships and obviously a sensible choice given the US's strategic situation, don't get me wrong, but they're not something Britain didn't know how to make which is kind of how the OP came across. I think what Alchenar is saying is than Britain couldn't built Frigates to the same standards that Americans could at the time, because the resources whern't there for the UK but were for the USA>.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
The Royal Navy was busy copper plating the bottoms of all their ships to squeeze a few more knots out of them. It's just a matter of priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Another question, did Grenadiers ever actually use Grenades? I always heard the title quickly became an honorific because grenades at the time were unreliable and ineffective, and that grenadiers were simple elite shock units. Originally, the Grenadiers were intended as an assault company within a battalion, armed with grenades and firearms. There were very few pure grenadier formations. Grenadiers wore different hats, commonly a mitre, and later bearskins. Grenades didn't work well, so the concept fell out of favor, but the grenadier company was designated as one of two elite companies of each line regiment. Each line battalion designated a company of grenadiers and a light company. The grenadiers were typically the tallest and most intimidating soldiers in the battalion, and were given the position of highest honor on the right of the line, where they guarded the regiment's colors. The color detail usually consisted of a junior officer to hold the flag and several noncoms to protect the junior officer. Grenadier company job #1 was to safeguard the honor of the regiment by protecting the colors. The light company typically had the most reliable and intelligent soldiers, who were trained to fight in open order as well as in the line. In a typical engagement, they would be sent forward from the line by a hundred yards or so and engage the enemy in open order, falling back on the line. Within the line, the light company occupied the position of second-highest honor, the leftmost company in the formation. I should note that this applies primarily to the British. The French, Prussians and Russians had entire battalions designated as grenadiers, and the French loved separate Light battalions as open-order skirmishers. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
P-Mack posted:If so, it didn't stop him from coming back to the US decades later on a grand tour. Huge crowds came out to see him and memorabilia sold like hotcakes. Ah the cashing in on the popularity of the late 18th century/early 19th century national heroes and villains so to speak. Morbid as hell in the case of Nelson after his death but hilarious as hell when it came to Napoleon.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Come to think of it, with the US frigates being built for speed but carrying much heavier guns and denser wood armor, wouldn't they be similar in practice to the battlecruisers of the early 20th versus the "battleships" of the line they'd be pitted against?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Well that seemed conclusive enough. Debate solved! The only thing unrealistic about that was that Civ 5 nukes are worth a drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Come to think of it, with the US frigates being built for speed but carrying much heavier guns and denser wood armor, wouldn't they be similar in practice to the battlecruisers of the early 20th versus the "battleships" of the line they'd be pitted against? Yes. They were more heavily armed than anything smaller than them and faster than anything larger. In practice they were also faster than many ships lighter than they were as well. feedmegin posted:The US frigates are nice ships and obviously a sensible choice given the US's strategic situation, don't get me wrong, but they're not something Britain didn't know how to make which is kind of how the OP came across. No, I didn't. I said: Murgos posted:England wasn't really even building frigates of that size and class at the time. And they weren't. I made no mention of their ability to make them, or their priorities. I know perfectly well than in response to the US heavy frigates they did start building ships of similar size and armament. The 38-gun Lively class (very good ships in their own right) were the mainstay of the RN through the early eighteen-oughts. Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Blut posted:This and the Tiger I post are both really great. I don't suppose you have one on the Panther as well? I don't, but Rossmum does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Yes. They were more heavily armed than anything smaller than them and faster than anything larger. In practice they were also faster than many ships lighter than they were as well. The RN had at least one 24 pound frigate. Slightly smaller and slightly faster which was the better better design..
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:We'd even get into contemporary times, where something like an immediate post-WWII army could get obliterated practically to a man by a nuclear power of the 60's. When do militaries start getting worse again? Now? 20 years from now? 2000 years? It'll happen eventually. SquadronROE posted:I did a straw poll with my coworkers a couple of years back. We're all American software engineers or similar, so college graduates. Out of 10 people, 4 didn't know who we fought the Revolutionary war against. Nationalism is a disease.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
didnt read lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Next Question: What were the technical specifications of Napoleonic cannons? They gets overlooked a lot in the hypothetical English Longbowman/Mongol Horde vs the Redcoats scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:31
|
|