|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If you have a link to where I could get that, that would be fantastic. As of right now I have a book on US explosive ordnance, but I can't recall how much it covers small arms munitions and its under a literal pile of books.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Pictures you say? Have my lovely low-res IWM trip: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~tuelean/Gallery/London/2010/Imperial_War_Museum/Phanatic posted:Yep. And so some tanks were broken when they could have been killing Germans. And that's basically my point: deciding how much armor to put on a light wheeled vehicle is based on what you want that vehicle to do, not on whether or not the folks back home are willing to recycle their used cooking grease or soup cans or whatever. "Withstand RPG fire" not was a design goal for the HMMWV, and they weren't unarmored because we couldn't afford armor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:Probably because the Confederates were trying to trade with Britain while the Taiping were trying to interfere with it. Don't gently caress with trade, yo. Unless you got the navy to back it up. You may be confusing this with the Boxer rebellion of 1899, which actively opposed to western trade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Pictures you say? Have my lovely low-res IWM trip: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~tuelean/Gallery/London/2010/Imperial_War_Museum/ Ahahahaha of course the British would put Hess' plane in the IWM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Ahahahaha of course the British would put Hess' plane in the IWM. Best Bf-110 camouflage of all time  
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Ahahahaha of course the British would put Hess' plane in the IWM. ETA: also of note, and amusing as hell given my later "gifted" avatar, is my favourite picture of Maggie ever. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago It had been strange even in a dream to see those dead men rise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:It had been strange even in a dream to see those dead men rise. Why lookst thou so? With my crossbow/I shot the Albatross! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Hah! In my country, conservatives is the only way to vote, since liberals are free-market-solves-all shitheads while social democrats are... crap, and a dozen of so other parties are populist if not pro-Russian crap. That said, evolution vs. God or, God forbid, climate change vs. God never crops up in here. Aaaaaaaanyways, How do command vehicles act in an army? Say, you have a command version BTR. Who's riding it? Who do they command? Hell, who would use a Mi-6 as a command post?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Pictures you say? Have my lovely low-res IWM trip: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~tuelean/Gallery/London/2010/Imperial_War_Museum/  This caught my eye. I recognize 82nd airborne, 101st airborne and British Pegasus division. Whats is that hog and Finland's flag insignia on the top row?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Would these guys have had proper ranks in the Swedish army or would they have just brought along their soldiers and only officially have authority over what they brought along? I'm also looking for the afore mentioned letter. I'm just taking random notes at this point to write something more collected later. I don't know how Sweden does it, but the Empire does it like: the head of state gives a guy an appointment as a colonel and a document, called a Capitulation, ordering X numbers of troops by Y time. The colonel gives back another document, I think it's called a Return, saying that he will do this. He then appoints his regimental level officers and captains, then the captains go out and raise companies. Officially, I think those people are supposed to be under the authority of the head of state that's employing all of them. But they seem to feel as though it's just to the person who raised them as a company, like the deserter who wrote a letter when he left saying that the lieutenant who raised him is leaving so he feels no obligation to stay. When one officer attempts to discipline or give orders to soldiers that another officer regards as belonging to him, that leads to fights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Pictures you say? Have my lovely low-res IWM trip: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~tuelean/Gallery/London/2010/Imperial_War_Museum/ cool pics i'm a fan of this especially:  Pyle posted:
I put 'blue cross sword insignia' on google and http://www.petergh.f2s.com/flashes.html says that "The crusader's shield and sword, but with a blue cross. Second Army was formed in June 1943. It took part in the Normandy Landings and the Northwest European campaign under General Eisenhower's SHAEF." Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Army_%28United_Kingdom%29 'black boar insignia' got this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_Corps_%28United_Kingdom%29 Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Pictures you say? Have my lovely low-res IWM trip: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~tuelean/Gallery/London/2010/Imperial_War_Museum/ Or canvas doors. They still use these in training operations. I had to tie one shut with my seat belt on a convoy. Humvees are fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Oh, Hazzard: If you want more on subcontracting you should read The Business of War by David Parrott, which is a good overview but nothing too specific on any one group or period, or The German Military Enterpriser And His Work Force by Fritz Redlich, which is probably one of the best works on mercenaries but is quite difficult to find since it's not actually a book, it's a special edition of some economics magazine from back in the 50s and as far as I know it has never been reprinted. Edit: Did you say you read Wilson and Mann? There should be something on how war works in those books as well. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This wouldn't be codified into international law until the 1933 Montevideo Convention, but the Confederacy would easily match all of those criteria (as it had trade agreements with European nations). At least using modern standards, the CSA definitely counts as a foreign nation. This is the same international law that's used to argue for Taiwan's independence. Aren't the Taiwanese themselves very careful to not argue they're an independent country from China, though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
JoeCL posted:Or canvas doors. They still use these in training operations. I had to tie one shut with my seat belt on a convoy. Humvees are fun. GODDAMN YOU DUDE YOU ARE THE ARMY I HAVE NOT THE ONE I WANT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Pyle posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Taiping went really far out of their way not to gently caress with British trade, in a way that actually proves disastrous for them. I thought the Taiping were pretty not cool with the opium trade, though, which was major profit center for the british? I'm not if anyone in the Foreign Office did a cost/benefit analysis of trade between the bellergents of the 1860s, but as far as the ACW is concerned, Confederate cotton may have been king, but American grain was what's for dinner. Better to risk depression than starvation. And, as it turned out, cotton could be grown in Egypt and India, as long as you didn't mind further dismantling India's ability to feed itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:As Hogge Wilde said, 2nd Army and XXX Corps thereof. It's the forces under Monty for Market Garden, thus the Glider Pilot Rgt flash below too.  They forgot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
sullat posted:I thought the Taiping were pretty not cool with the opium trade, though, which was major profit center for the british? I'm not if anyone in the Foreign Office did a cost/benefit analysis of trade between the bellergents of the 1860s, but as far as the ACW is concerned, Confederate cotton may have been king, but American grain was what's for dinner. Better to risk depression than starvation. And, as it turned out, cotton could be grown in Egypt and India, as long as you didn't mind further dismantling India's ability to feed itself. The Taiping were super harsh on opium, but it didn't stop the trade and profits any more than modern day drug wars do. Their biggest problem was that they would only offer free trade, whereas the British could extort unequal concessions out of the Qing. The British did analyze the situation and were sure they could make a ton of money as soon as the war was over and trade could flourish again, but it turned out they were wrong. Once China's internal markets which had been disrupted by the war recovered, Chinese merchants no longer had to focus solely on the export trade and the economic boom in the treaty ports comes to a halt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:
I'm a stupid American and I know that a Polish parachute unit dropped at Arnhem. Did the IWM not have the appropriate patch on hand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
So I'm halfway through the first volume of this two volume illustrated history of the United states. It was made in 1973 and while it doesn't seem to present outright fiction it's clearly biased in the traditional American ways: the revolutionary forces are brave and patriotic and generally get all the positive attributes while the British forces are, if anything, merely disciplined or professional. But while it is a bit romantic the facts seem to line up with I remember from Mike Duncan's podcast. Except that I just read about the crossing of the Delaware and the attack on Trenton and Princeton; no American deaths at Trenton and a hand full at Princeton? Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I'm a stupid American and I know that a Polish parachute unit dropped at Arnhem. Did the IWM not have the appropriate patch on hand? I guess it's because the Polish forces didn't really have Western-style patches like the rest of the units had. They could have put up something else, though, like the Combat Parachute Badge, but that wasn't unique to the Brigade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:
That's right. Two men died of exposure during the night march to Trenton and a few were wounded during the battle. Princeton had 25 or so Americans killed. They were pretty incredible victories considering the Americans solidly got their asses kicked for most of 1776.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I'm a stupid American and I know that a Polish parachute unit dropped at Arnhem. Did the IWM not have the appropriate patch on hand? I have a more general question, if anybody knows the answer. I know the Allies often had other nationalities fighting with them, like the free French. The French I get, since they were evacuated at Dunkirk; what I understand less is how nations like Poland and the Dutch actually had significant forces fighting on the Allied side. How did so many Poles make it to Britain?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Except that I just read about the crossing of the Delaware and the attack on Trenton and Princeton; no American deaths at Trenton and a hand full at Princeton? Is that right? That's right, no combat deaths for the December 26th crossing. A handful of Americans were wounded, and a couple guys died from not having shoes, but that's it. The Hessians suffer 100 casualties and about 1,000 are captured. There are two other battles right around that time that which you might be thinking of. You have the Second Battle of Trenton about a week later on January 2 where the Americans repulse a British attack at Assunpink creek, then Princeton the following day. Combined casualties for those two battles is maybe 150-200 killed and wounded for the Americans, and they inflicted an additional 300+ casualties on the British and took another 200 or so captives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this, since I'm not sure what you mean by "proper ranks in the Swedish army" as something distinct from subcontracting. HEY GAL posted:Oh, Hazzard: If you want more on subcontracting you should read The Business of War by David Parrott, which is a good overview but nothing too specific on any one group or period, or The German Military Enterpriser And His Work Force by Fritz Redlich, which is probably one of the best works on mercenaries but is quite difficult to find since it's not actually a book, it's a special edition of some economics magazine from back in the 50s and as far as I know it has never been reprinted. I'm not sure what book you're referring to when you say Wilson and Mann, so I can't be sure if I've read it. I have a whole load of pictures of the shelves from the library, but I didn't have the flash on so most of the books are difficult to read the sides off. And reading anything on the Holy Roman Empire is a struggle with all the German.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I have a more general question, if anybody knows the answer. A lot of the Free French troops were from colonal Africa. So, Sengalese led by expats. The Dutch had some as well, but more expats and refugees. Dunno about the Poles. Probably expats or foreign workers, since they didn't have a colonial empire to draw upon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:There are two other battles right around that time that which you might be thinking of. You have the Second Battle of Trenton about a week later on January 2 where the Americans repulse a British attack at Assunpink creek, then Princeton the following day. The book covers those; it's not bad for something intended for popular consumption 40 years ago, though maybe popular history gets viewed too harshly in general ( Tom Holland). Still, reading between the lines you can get interesting ideas; the book mentioned an operation, around the time of bunker hill, where the British go out to a small town, ( I think this was related to revere's ride) and they look for hidden military supplies before coming under fire from 'minute men' and have to retreat back to town. Like most Americans I was familiar with the myth of the sharp shooting minute man confounding the British line infantry, but I can imagine a different interpretation of the events. The British troops showed restraint in searching the homes (of British subjects) while looking for rebel supplies and then had to retreat, black hawk down style, while taking pot shots from rebels. It sounds lovely for them and the book is pretty smug about how the Americans first concealed the supplies then harassed the column.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
sullat posted:A lot of the Free French troops were from colonal Africa. So, Sengalese led by expats. The Dutch had some as well, but more expats and refugees. Dunno about the Poles. Probably expats or foreign workers, since they didn't have a colonial empire to draw upon. Once the Soviets invaded and it was clear there was no hope the Polish armed forces were basically told to evacuate the country. Around 140,000 troops made it out to Romania and eventually made their way to France. When France fell I think most of the army troops were captured but the pilots were able to mostly take their planes and fly out to the UK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I have a more general question, if anybody knows the answer. Several ways. First Polish formations in the West were formed in France, mostly out of Poles who had migrated there or to the Low Countries before the war. These men were organized into four infantry divisions, a mountain infantry brigade and an armoured cavalry brigade, as well as integrated into French fighter units. They had also received some hand-me-down destroyers from the Royal Navy for convoy duty (and brought a couple of ships from back home - a few were pre-emptively sent to Britain in late August of 1939, some others had to brave the entire Baltic, cross the Sound and make it through the North Sea under German air supremacy). In all, the Poles had 85 000 men in the West at this point, and 50 000 of those fought during the Fall of France. Some divisions were shattered, others fought as long as they could and then withdrew to Switzerland and were interned, and some 27 000 were evacuated to Britain or Palestine. Some men made it to the West on their own, either sneaking through Germany and France, or through neutral Hungary and allied Romania. However, these men were few due to obvious difficulty of such a trip, and Romanians arrested nearly all officers and many soldiers under German pressure. The men listed heretofore formed the First Polish Corps, the Polish Navy in the West and Polish air divisions in the RAF. In 1941, when the USSR was invaded, the Soviets agreed to release Polish POWs in their captivity (sans certain officers who most definitely ran to Manchuria) and form them into an army. However, they got to three incomplete divisions (about 41 000 men total) before deciding to bail out before they can be stuffed into a meatgrinder or starved to death by the Soviets. They went to Iran, found a bear there, then marched into Palestine and passed under British command. This triggered a horrible diplomatic crisis, of course, and conveniently gave Stalin an excuse to break diplomatic relations with the Polish government in exile, but that's another story. In any case, after suffering about 2 500 desertions in Palestine (by Jewish troops who wanted to stay there and join Haganah), they made up the Second Polish Corps. Finally, the third major (in fact, the largest, as far as the Polish forces in the West are concerned) source of Polish troops (and the main source of replacements after 1943) were Polish citizens pressed into service in the Wehrmacht who tended to surrender at the first opportunity. These POWs were then handed over by the British and circulated into Polish units. They usually hid under false names to protect their families, who would have been shot for their desertion. One source lists the numbers total as follows: Wehrmacht deserters 89 300 (35,8%) Evacuated from the USSR 83 000 (33,7%) Evacuated from France 35 000 (14,0%) Liberated POWs 21 750 (8,7%) Runaways from occupied Europe 14 210 (5,7%) French recruits 7000 (2,8%) Brasil, Argentina and Canada 2290 (0,9%) United Kingdom 1780 (0,7%) In all 249 000 (I know these numbers do not match ones I posted above, this is due to differences in terms.) Tevery Best fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Aren't the Taiwanese themselves very careful to not argue they're an independent country from China, though? It's a complicated question. The current administration is very much "We have a special relationship but definitely aren't two countries, please don't say that we're independent my god please," while the past administration seems to have mostly remained quiet but the now former president Lee Teng-hui (president from 1988 to 2000) has since said that Taiwan is indeed already independent and it's just a matter of making some formalities like an official name change and new constitution to make it apparent. The problem is that China has publicly stated or implied that they'll simply invade and forcibly annex Taiwan if they go independent (or even try to perform diplomacy under the assertion that they're not One China) and that the Taiwanese people don't have the right to decide on independence. Since the People's Republic of China is an absolute juggernaut, publicly campaigning for independence is a good way to find yourself and your citizens royally hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I'm not sure what book you're referring to when you say Wilson and Mann...
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Peter Wilson, Europe's Tragedy, and Golo Mann, Wallenstein A Life Narrated. You said you were reading those books? Yes, I just don't remember author's names for the most part. I also went googling "Wilson and Mann" and got nothing useful back, so I had no idea what you were on about. Also, if I keep reading about individuals in the TYW, I'm probably going to be continually horrified and depressed and unable to discuss it with anyone. Edit: In all of the small skirmishes along campaigns, how were pikemen meant to take part during the Renaissance? I'm struggling to imagine smaller fights taking place with the massed pike formations we imagine as the staple for pike and shot. Hazzard fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
100 Years Ago I'm thoroughly sick and tired of talking about what an utter twerp General Stopford is, but he still remains in command of IX Corps. Lord Kitchener makes a useless and unwelcome intervention, the French are worried about the Russian army (still being shortchanged), and Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck sneaks up and debags a British outpost protecting the Uganda Railway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Has Lettow-Vorbeck already defeated the British through the dastardly use of weaponized bees?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's a complicated question. The current administration is very much "We have a special relationship but definitely aren't two countries, please don't say that we're independent my god please," while the past administration seems to have mostly remained quiet but the now former president Lee Teng-hui (president from 1988 to 2000) has since said that Taiwan is indeed already independent and it's just a matter of making some formalities like an official name change and new constitution to make it apparent. In that case, what defines Taiwan's lack of independence? Do they pay taxes to mainland China? Do they follow laws that are passed by the rest of China? Because if not, they're as least as independent as Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:In that case, what defines Taiwan's lack of independence? Do they pay taxes to mainland China? Do they follow laws that are passed by the rest of China? Because if not, they're as least as independent as Canada. Taiwan has an independent government and president, unique constitution, and its own military. For all intents and purposes it's a sovereign nation. However, China claims that they own the territory. China refuses to have diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes Taiwan as an independent state and requires said nations to recognize their claim to Taiwan, which has essentially bullied most of the world into going along with them. Taiwan's lack of independence is basically China pulling a "Because I said so" and having enough power in the world that they can't simply be ignored. They've gone so far as stating or implying that they'll invade Taiwan to "take them back" if they formally declare independence or do anything else that might suggest that they're not playing their game anymore. This discourages the Taiwanese government from trying to make any changes or public statements toward formal independence. So going by your analogy, it's like if the UK continued to claim that it owns Canada and has always owned Canada and saying that they'll invade it if Canada tries to say it's independent, and also they'll stop being friends with the United States or France or whatever if they don't say "Yes, the British own Canada." chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:In that case, what defines Taiwan's lack of independence? Do they pay taxes to mainland China? Do they follow laws that are passed by the rest of China? Because if not, they're as least as independent as Canada. Factually, Taiwan is independent. However, according to the 5000 year old feelings of the Chinese people, it is merely a province in rebellion that Beijing mercifully allows to exist. Admitting independence would mean admitting that China can lose territory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Stupid, petty geopolitics, but it gives me an opportunity to link this!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:58
|
|