|
The Lone Badger posted:But basically yes, rally-configuration tank.  From here: http://www.arcair.com/Gal2/1901-2000/Gal1981-Tank-Choy/00.shtm
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Nah, it's American. In 1938 a gum company decided to raise awareness of the "horrors of war" by issuing a set with scenes from current events in China, Spain, and Ethiopia. Pro click right here, the whole set is fascinatingly bizarre. Detailed depictions of civilians getting dismembered by bombs, and then this:  Edit: ^^^ cue TD rally doctrine chat. count_von_count fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
count_von_count posted:Pro click right here, the whole set is fascinatingly bizarre. Detailed depictions of civilians getting dismembered by bombs, and then this: Can someone tell me about Big Sword units? I first read about them in Battles in the Back Of Beyond rulebook or something, and they were weird in even in the context in RCW. What lead to Chinese thinking that sword units are a fun thing to have in the XXth century?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Sounds like something the Total War series would do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can someone tell me about Big Sword units? I first read about them in Battles in the Back Of Beyond rulebook or something, and they were weird in even in the context in RCW. What lead to Chinese thinking that sword units are a fun thing to have in the XXth century? Here's a decent link. NSFW depending on your company's severed head policy. http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/ The tldr is that it was usually a rear area militia/ military police thing, and while swords were widely issued, mass sword charges were pretty rare. Pretty soon the Chinese figure out that bomb vests are an even better way to go when you need a desperation suicide charge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can someone tell me about Big Sword units? I first read about them in Battles in the Back Of Beyond rulebook or something, and they were weird in even in the context in RCW. What lead to Chinese thinking that sword units are a fun thing to have in the XXth century? I can't speak to the Big Sword units specifically, but Chinese logistics during WW2 was kind of a constant, on-going clusterfuck. I imagine swords were sometimes easier to get a hold of than modern rifles, and you didn't need an on-going supply of ammo for them either. Handy characteristics when you can round up soldiers relatively easily but had a shortage of modern weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Indian Expeditionary Force "D" assaults Nasiriya and once again pushes the Ottomans back. Second Isonzo begins a long, slow petering-out process, more Russians in the Caucasus are running away, and there's been another Q-ship victory in the North Sea, this one using its own guns instead of simply acting as a decoy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I can't speak to the Big Sword units specifically, but Chinese logistics during WW2 was kind of a constant, on-going clusterfuck. I imagine swords were sometimes easier to get a hold of than modern rifles, and you didn't need an on-going supply of ammo for them either. Handy characteristics when you can round up soldiers relatively easily but had a shortage of modern weapons. Yep, these things were basically cranked out by village blacksmiths, so there's very little standardization. At some point there must have been a dadao vs katana duel between two soldiers with really bad aim, but I haven't come across an account of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Can someone tell me about Big Sword units? I first read about them in Battles in the Back Of Beyond rulebook or something, and they were weird in even in the context in RCW. What lead to Chinese thinking that sword units are a fun thing to have in the XXth century? From what I heard, these units are issue rifles. Sword is just their (iconic) backup weapon. Some civilians got words that one such unit was able to defeat another Japanese unit in a battle so they donated a bunch of swords to this unit. The commander of the unit replied that they needed rifles and ammo, not more swords. There are also some legends that say in close quarter combat the swords are very effective against Japanese bayonet, since Japanese soldiers are not trained to defend against swords.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:From what I heard, these units are issue rifles. Sword is just their (iconic) backup weapon. Some civilians got words that one such unit was able to defeat another Japanese unit in a battle so they donated a bunch of swords to this unit. The commander of the unit replied that they needed rifles and ammo, not more swords. A rifle with bayonet is just a really heavy, poorly balanced spear, so its not surprising that it comes up short against single purpose close combat weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
I was really hoping someone from the fencing thread would come in and post a video of fencing against a guy with a drill rifle. If it turns out none exist, I promise I will get ahold of a bayonet combat manual and make a bayonet out of duct tape to see what it would be like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Neal Stephenson quote post in 5.. 4.. 3..
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:A rifle with bayonet is just a really heavy, poorly balanced spear, so its not surprising that it comes up short against single purpose close combat weapons. Ehhh, you're right but a rifle with a bayo is moe than a poorly balanced spear. You can do a lot of things with a rifle that would break a spear. It's more like a heavy club with a knife bolted onto the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:I was really hoping someone from the fencing thread would come in and post a video of fencing against a guy with a drill rifle. Quoted for Toxx Clause 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Baracula posted:Britain went to war with Iceland over cod in 1958. The might of the royal navy versus the Icelandic fishing fleet. They went to war again in 1973. This time it was the British fishing fleet vs. the Icelandic coast guard. Iceland won.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
count_von_count posted:Pro click right here, the whole set is fascinatingly bizarre. Detailed depictions of civilians getting dismembered by bombs, and then this: I'm wondering if maybe the manufacturer was not ethnic Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:I was really hoping someone from the fencing thread would come in and post a video of fencing against a guy with a drill rifle. Really probably depends on a whole lot of factors. Best I can do it this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcN5Nv0PS84 Japan actually still has Juukendo, bayonet fighting, and Tankendo, short sword/unattached bayonet fighting, as sports, though they're minor as gently caress, especially the latter. Of course the modern version of juukendo is apparently some amalgam of old Japanese spear fighting styles (apparently not really practised anywhere that I can find through internet searches) and French-origin bayonet fighting, as up until the French lost the Franco-Prussian war Japan was bringing in a lot of military advisors from France, and it uses "rifles" that are clearly a lot lighter than an actual rifle, so how similar it is to actual bayonet fighting is pretty doubtful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
I always gotta wonder what sort of position Japan would be in if they didn't go into isolationism in the 1600's but instead escalated their trade and relations with Europe. It's just so unprecedented as there don't seem to be any other ethnically homogenous cultural polities that had extensive contact with the west that weren't western AND remained independent/uncolonized. The closest example I can think of is the Ottoman Turks but while mostly Muslim weren't homogenous. It's interesting for me to think about because of a few factors: 1) Even when isolated they maintained de facto independent and undisturbed until Commodore Perry. 2) Because of retired Samurai usually teaching peasants how to read and write, literacy was rather high for a non-western nation without a national school system (I've read numbers as high as 40%). 3) When they DID have regular contact with Europe were very quick to adapt Western tactics; the rise and death of the heavy Cavalry charge occurred within a single generation, and they seemed to have close order drill with fire arms very close to the western model for a time. 4) The European pacific trade by all accounts, included the treasure ships, was very vulnerable. The gold and silver from even a few ships might have had an interested effect on Japan's balance sheets and enable Japan to be imperially assertive much earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
I doubt fully engaging with Europe would have led them to being imperially assertive. The major examples of asian cultures heavily engaged with European traders on (initially) a quasi-equal basis are India and China. Japan's government wasn't exactly a monolithic entity in that period either. Even at its most centralized it wouldn't have been too hard for an enterprising foreign trader/diplomat to strike a deal with some local strong man and agree to arm and back him. Isolating the gently caress out of themselves in that period while simultaneously modernizing is probably what enabled them to become an imperial power in the late 19th century, rather than becoming colonized like the rest of Asia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Was chatting with a coworker over lunch today about the Pacific theater of WW2, and I realized that for all the mentions I've seen of Allied submarines doing horrible, horrible things to the IJN, just about every book I've seen about submarine warfare in WW2 has focused on the Germans. Any good books about the submarine war against the IJN?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I doubt fully engaging with Europe would have led them to being imperially assertive. The major examples of asian cultures heavily engaged with European traders on (initially) a quasi-equal basis are India and China. Japan's government wasn't exactly a monolithic entity in that period either. Even at its most centralized it wouldn't have been too hard for an enterprising foreign trader/diplomat to strike a deal with some local strong man and agree to arm and back him. Tokugawa did a *very* thorough job in defanging the Daimyo and making sure they wouldn't revolt in a scheme very similar to what Louis the 14th did; so the question becomes why didn't someone pull a Machiavellian scheme to flip a "Baron" in France then? Because a centralized strong state is still nevertheless a strong centralized state and arming one regional Daimyo is still only one albeit strong regional Daimyo against the might of the rest of them. You're best case scenario is the Spanish flipping a Catholic Daimyo but this wouldn't gain them much traction against the rest of them; European soldiers invading Japan considering the previous Mongol invasion attempts I don't think would be very pretty for them. Like it begs the question how does the isolation originally prevented what you propose in the first place? Couldn't merchants have still landed anywhere and done so? I think the fact of the matter is a less isolated Japan is still a geographically isolated Japan and more trade access (especially with MORE Europeans such as France and England and later on Russia) wouldn't have changed the calculus for many of them that japan was far too off the beaten path and far too well defended. Japan is/was a very mountainous island chain dotted with fortresses and had an indigenous firearms industry at this point, the Europeans do not have the sort of advantages that would carry the day that did so against the Inca and Aztecs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Why would somebody invade Japan, besides putting up a flag there for the sake of putting up a flag and then shrugging and leaving? It's not like the place has anything to offer that you can't get closer to home. Well, laquered nightpots maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Why would somebody invade Japan, besides putting up a flag there for the sake of putting up a flag and then shrugging and leaving? It's not like the place has anything to offer that you can't get closer to home. Well, laquered nightpots maybe. For the more evangelical nations that had a bit of a proto-white man's burden going on the Japanese being heathens that need to be saved by jesus might have been sufficient for a casus beli. Otherwise more markets for exports? I don't think all of the land and colonies Europeans had fought for had clear economic objectives at the time either. But again assuming it's true that even a less isolated Japan doesn't nevertheless present a solid reason for a European to consider invasion when trade is so lucrative* even better really. *This is almost certainly a guarantee. Japan would've been a fantastic market for manufactured goods and perhaps materials like ocean worthy timbers and high quality steel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:*This is almost certainly a guarantee. Japan would've been a fantastic market for manufactured goods and perhaps materials like ocean worthy timbers and high quality steel. Definitely. But remember that a major factor in Japan's decision to become isolated was that trade with Europe had destabilized the economy, because of fluctuations in prices caused by trading Japanese gold for foreign silver. The Japanese government knew that the rest of the world had those goods available at different prices than Japan, and was more worried about stability than potential profits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:I was really hoping someone from the fencing thread would come in and post a video of fencing against a guy with a drill rifle. It's a thing, my grandfather writes about observing a match in his memoirs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:European soldiers invading Japan considering the previous Mongol invasion attempts I don't think would be very pretty for them. I don't think relying on history's most egregious double case of sheer dumb luck is a very sound national defense strategy. JaucheCharly posted:Why would somebody invade Japan, besides putting up a flag there for the sake of putting up a flag and then shrugging and leaving? It's not like the place has anything to offer that you can't get closer to home. Well, laquered nightpots maybe. Japanese porcelain was pretty highly prized even during isolation. Places have been invaded for dumber reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Apparently the Germans tested the Leopard 2 on a closed down Autobahn, with the governor removed. It managed to top 100 kph, but the noise was apparently completely overwhelming to the crew and steering was more wishing really hard the tank would randomly turn into a direction. I could probably cobble together an estimate of the state of the Autobahn if I could be bothered to look up the pounds-per-square-inch calculations for a Leopard 2. (Well, that and trying to figure out if treads are worse than wheels for road damage. They probably are, but maybe not by much?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Was chatting with a coworker over lunch today about the Pacific theater of WW2, and I realized that for all the mentions I've seen of Allied submarines doing horrible, horrible things to the IJN, just about every book I've seen about submarine warfare in WW2 has focused on the Germans. Any good books about the submarine war against the IJN? US subs were much, much better against Japans merchant fleet, by 45 the US subs effectiveness dropped dramatically simply because they'd sunk so much of it and forced what was left to hug the coast. I'd recommend Silent Victory by Clay Blair Jr. http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Victor...t+victory+blair
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Another factor is that if you can go as far as Japan, why not go to China instead? It's next door and far larger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
I mean, that's what happened. It took two Opium Wars for the Qing to not be closed up every bit as much as Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I could probably cobble together an estimate of the state of the Autobahn if I could be bothered to look up the pounds-per-square-inch calculations for a Leopard 2. That might be a more involved calculation than it would seem at first. Were the tracks padded? I'd think so. What Leo II version was it and was it fully loaded up? What was the state of the stretch of road? Also ground pressure is comparatively really good with static or linearly/smoothly moving tracked vehicles, though IIRC this can change in quite negative ways during sharp turns and under certain conditions where the suspension has to compensate for a lot of vertical travel. The Brits crossed a bog with Scorpions in the Falklands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I mean, that's what happened. It took two Opium Wars for the Qing to not be closed up every bit as much as Japan. Well, the Qing weren't as closed off but they were definitely not very welcoming to European traders. At the very least, they weren't closing the country off the way the Japanese did, and even then Japan wasn't totally closed off. From the European perspective, it takes a lot of time and effort to ship stuff to Asia. Once you're there, would you rather opt for the large populous country that's often compared to the Roman Empire? Or this island nation of dudes who used to be okay with trading but aren't anymore? Even if a trader wanted to trade with Japan and was willing to force it, where'd he get the resources for it and who would support him when China's right there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
So i had a bit of fun with the rally tank thing, and yeah it isn't going to work. Given the horsepower of modern tanks the main thing limiting top speed isn't going to be power, it's going to be the tracks. Track links are a fairly significant chunks of steel, and they move at the same speed as the tank, so taking the top speed of a Leclerc you're asking the links to go from 70km/h horizontal to 70km/h vertical in the radius of the idler wheel, or about 1/40s. That's about 80Gs of acceleration, the track pins are probably not very happy about that, and are creating massive amounts of friction and heat in the process. They probably can't take that for very long. If you double the speed to 140km/h (86mph for you yanks), you end up with 320Gs, which is usually more associated with car crashes than moving machinery. So yeah, no tracked vehicles at highway speeds, unless you massively increase the size of the idler and drive wheels. Tracks are bad for going fast. A BTR is the way to go for your Mad Max fantasies. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Argas posted:Well, the Qing weren't as closed off but they were definitely not very welcoming to European traders. At the very least, they weren't closing the country off the way the Japanese did, and even then Japan wasn't totally closed off. Huh? They pretty much did close the country off just like the Japanese did. All trade with foreigners (from non-tributary states) was conducted exclusively through Macau, a single port down in the south; in Japan, all trade with foreigners was made through Dejima in Nagasaki. Things got more porous over time in China 'cause Europeans cared about it more, if they'd cared about Japan as much then I'm sure the story would be the same there. Korea was incidentally pretty much the same. I guess isolationism greatly appealed to Early Modern East Asians or something. Argas posted:From the European perspective, it takes a lot of time and effort to ship stuff to Asia. Once you're there, would you rather opt for the large populous country that's often compared to the Roman Empire? Or this island nation of dudes who used to be okay with trading but aren't anymore? Even if a trader wanted to trade with Japan and was willing to force it, where'd he get the resources for it and who would support him when China's right there? I don't know enough about trade in the period (or now) to say why but I don't think it works like this. Most of the trade goods Europeans offered would have come from other colonies in Asia anyway right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Huh? They pretty much did close the country off just like the Japanese did. All trade with foreigners (from non-tributary states) was conducted exclusively through Macau, a single port down in the south; in Japan, all trade with foreigners was made through Dejima in Nagasaki. Things got more porous over time in China 'cause Europeans cared about it more, if they'd cared about Japan as much then I'm sure the story would be the same there. Sorry, I was mistaken about that first part. And on trade, you're right. It's rarely direct from Europe to Asia. You'd get traders bringing stuff to other holdings in the area, then ferried back step by step instead of in one continuous voyage. It still takes a lot of time and resources, and when it comes down to picking between the larger market and the smaller market, one which has already been monopolized by the Dutch and aren't exactly open to anyone else, the choice is easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Tracks are bad for going fast. Maybe we can compromise, like Lenin's car.  You'd have to make the wheels pretty robust too to resist being blown up. Maybe a thin layer of solid rubber over the rims?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Didn't the Christie suspension--when connected to road wheels--make the tanks run stupidly fast? I mean, by modern standards, even. Yeah, saw this citation on Wikipedia. 104 MPH in 1931.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
What was the logic behind east asian isolationism? Did they just really not like the idea of filthy Europeans stomping all around their countries? I understand there are far fewer barriers to Europeans wandering around Europe in this period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:What was the logic behind east asian isolationism? Did they just really not like the idea of filthy Europeans stomping all around their countries? I understand there are far fewer barriers to Europeans wandering around Europe in this period. While xenophobia certainly played into it, the control of their own population was a much bigger contribution. In Japan at least, the context of the time must be considered. By the time everything settled down, not quite unified under Ieyasu, but with him definitely as the unquestioned top dog, everyone was quite tired of all that unrest of the Sengoku Jidai, and just wanted social stability. Especially those in power. This is also when neo-Confucianism really takes off in Japan (in no small part due to the piles of neo-Confucian texts obtained from Korea, through the grand robbery writ large that was the Imjin War), which especially appealed to the daimyo because it could be used to justify their statuses. Similarly, the Tokugawa decided it was best to cut off ties with the West (not counting the Dutch in Dejima) not because they thought the West would come and conquer them or anything, but because foreign contact was seen as an avenue for evil outside ideas to leak in and contaminate the peasants, who after all don't know any better. Who knows, they might start to think for themselves and then they won't need us. This was the big problem they had with Christianity (after it served its purpose in helping Nobunaga crush the Buddhist establishment), not that it was a different faith from their own, but that it was popular, it appealed to the masses. And the idea of your peasants being loyal to some guy in a funny hat half way across the globe, instead of just to you and the social structure that keeps you in power? That sounds like it might cause more unrest, and we've had enough of that in the last few centuries. Edit: Actually it is under Iemitsu and not Ieyasu that this really kicks off, with the actual Sakoku Edict, but whatever. Part of a larger process that started under Hideyoshi. GSD fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
In the aftermath of the American Civil War, I'm curious about the post-war fate of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. While many men fought for the South in these states, these states remained in the union. After the war, were these men pillorized as traitors in their communities? In the South there was the reconstruction regime but I've never heard anything about the treatment of ex-Confederates in the border states post-war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 09:28
|
|
