|
Alchenar posted:The Franco-Prussian war was the big one and it convinced everyone that the Americans were just fuckups and you could win a modern war with a million men facing a million men in a few months if you just knew what you were doing. That line of thinking continued on and was a major part of (failed) early WWI doctrine, right? Worth pointing out that puppetmaster Otto von Bismarck goaded France into recklessly attacking the well-prepared Germans, who then promptly smushed the French and took Paris. my understanding is the Prussians won mainly through superior organization and mobility. It was a very calculated move meant to push the remaining independent south German states into an alliance with Prussia, which succeeded and the German Empire was formed following the end of the war.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
A French general bottling up his entire army in Metz helped as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:This is what I've heard people claim the armies in the American civil war were basically. Even at their worst the armies of the American Civil War were better than their contemporaries in South America by miles. Like Argentina frequently had entire divisions desert before they ever made it to the front. The soldiers sometimes lived by forage alone and often lacked basic supplies like powder. Men could go years without pay, and unlike the mercenaries of HEGEL's day much of the fighting was in virtually uninhabited wilderness and swamp, so good luck plundering your living. The armies participating in the War of the Triple Alliance were all so amazingly incompetent and ineffective its surprising they were even capable of fighting a war at all. Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:That line of thinking continued on and was a major part of (failed) early WWI doctrine, right? People still claim the American civil war was largely waged between armed mobs in untamed wilderness in a post-WWI world.  It rather aggravates my  when I see those claims, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
That sounds like old fashioned parochialism from the european continent. In the anglo-speaking web, you get that anywhere when discussing non-european non-northern american societies, cf people acting shocked about the scale of the social organisation of ancient-medieval Chinese states, or the warmaking capacities of the Mongol Khanates, or the tactical innovations of Japanese and Polynesian musketmen, or the east African societies and their connections to Indian ocean trading networks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:There were battles on the Great Lakes in North America during the American Revolution and War of 1812, but I'm having a hard time finding wikipedia pages about them. Thousand Islands in the Seven Years too
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Polynesian musketmen OK I haven't heard much about this one. It sounds interesting though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Because the Planter class was effectively the local aristocracy, for whom martial pursuits have always been important. Big difference from being an officer in a volunteer force to being a draftee. They were overrepresented in all ranks. It's that it was their war when all was said and done, and areas that weren't part of that society didn't want to fight for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:OK I haven't heard much about this one. It sounds interesting though. Seconded. Could you expand? I've heard that the Japanese sort of anticipated Maurice of Naussau's reforms (which were what, exactly? drill?) by a few decades, possibly even influencing him (since the Dutch were the permitted gaijin traders at the time), but what's this about the Polynesians? Are you referring to the Maories during the Musket Wars?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:OK I haven't heard much about this one. It sounds interesting though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars https://books.google.com.au/books?i...noeuvre&f=false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars With the introduction of the potato (a high caloric crop) and the firearm (traded for slave-grown goods), the internecine warfare between Maori tribes graduated to full scale warfare. Like other societies with the gun, they independently discovered how to rotate ranks to lay down volleys of fire. They also quickly worked out how to defend their fortresses against firearms. This latter innovation made it a total bitch for the british to launch their usual punitive expedition against natives. It's probably for this reason that the British often had to cut deals with local Maori tribes, unlike say in Australia where a lack of political organisation led to their aboriginals being genocided to obscurity. Not like the British kept to the deals, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
It's interesting to compare the Malaya crisis with the Vietnam war, and other similar conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Like Argentina frequently had entire divisions dessert before they ever made it to the front.  Argentina's obesity rate must have skyrocketed during the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
On grog on /hwg/ is just writing a game on New Zealand Wars, and Maori are winning playtesting. Last game had them whoop two squads of militia via the power of shotgun pits and ambush stabbing. EDIT: So, it's Barabarossa and Jerry infantry is attacking a small town. Fritz here is a mortar dude from leg infantry unit. How many rounds does he have? Those mortar round boxes look heavy. How does he get orders to fire and determine where to fire? How many friends does he have to operate his tube? On a somewhat related question, how does infantry tell their accompanying StuG/StuH/stubby barrel PzIV that there's a Maxim nest need exploding? JcDent fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars Ah, I keep forgetting that the Maori are Polynesian. For some reason (WW2) my brain immediately jumped to coral atolls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:
lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:
More like extra largentina, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:EDIT: So, it's Barabarossa and Jerry infantry is attacking a small town. Fritz here is a mortar dude from leg infantry unit. How many rounds does he have? Those mortar round boxes look heavy. How does he get orders to fire and determine where to fire? How many friends does he have to operate his tube? For rounds, I guess it depends on his supply chain? What kind/calibre of mortar is it? Increased calibre will almost always mean heavier rounds which, of course, means you carry less. A Russian 82mm mortar round O-832 weighed about 7 lbs, and carried them in 10-round wooden boxes or in battle/combat boxes. So we know there's a minimum of 70lbs for wooden and 21lbs for combat, not counting the container itself. When I get back to my little library I'll see if I can find any mention for German mortar teams. As for orders to fire, I assumed radio or messenger depending on how close they are to the people requesting support. Size of team operating mortar also depends on the size of said mortar. As for the armoured support, same for the mortars. They are equipped with radios, so would presumably just use those, unless the crew was exposed in a safe area, where they could speak to the party concerned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
IIRC later on at least some Allied tanks were fitted with external telephones that infantry could pick up to have a quick chat with the tank commander on. Shermans in the Pacific in particular I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:IIRC later on at least some Allied tanks were fitted with external telephones that infantry could pick up to have a quick chat with the tank commander on. Shermans in the Pacific in particular I think. It was standard on late Shermans, and photographic evidence of them used in Europe is quite common. I don't know how prevalent that was with other Allied tanks like the Cromwell, Churchill, Comet, etc. I don't recall Russian tanks having them either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Ok, what what it be for mortars that could be found at the lowest (company? platoon?) level? And how widespread were radios? One per platoon? On a somewhat related question, how were battlefield telephones used?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Depends on the size of the mortar. In the earlier portion of the war a small mortar like the Ordnance SBML 2-inch mortar seemed to be pretty common at platoon level, with the British keeping up that practice until the end. Bigger stuff like 50mm to 80-ish seems to be a company-level asset gathered in a separate platoon with a full section/squad crewing a gun, and then there's the mad poo poo like the Soviet 120mm which as far as I can tell was treated almost like a separate artillery battery attached at battalion or higher levels. This is super general though, and obviously varies from nation to nation and theatre to theatre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Tomn posted:You know, speaking of Vietnam, I don't suppose anyone knows what the popular narrative of the Vietnam War is over in, well, Vietnam (and possibly surrounding countries)? I'm well aware of how the Americans looked at it (both good and bad), but I don't think I've ever heard much about how it's remembered where it was actually fought. I recall reading The Sorrow of War by Bao Ninh, which (and I may be wrong, because memory) is about the war spilling over into Cambodia. It's not really a "popular" narrative, but he does mention how they perceive it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
The last Nat Geo had an article about Laos coping with the war now, but I don't remember much besides "BOMB CRATERS" and "McDonalds moving in great, gooo progress". Arquinsiel posted:Depends on the size of the mortar. In the earlier portion of the war a small mortar like the Ordnance SBML 2-inch mortar seemed to be pretty common at platoon level, with the British keeping up that practice until the end. Bigger stuff like 50mm to 80-ish seems to be a company-level asset gathered in a separate platoon with a full section/squad crewing a gun, and then there's the mad poo poo like the Soviet 120mm which as far as I can tell was treated almost like a separate artillery battery attached at battalion or higher levels. This is super general though, and obviously varies from nation to nation and theatre to theatre. I think I'd still want to hear about Germans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
100 Years Ago A lot of the time, when words like "senseless", "worthless", "hopeless", "meaningless" (and etc) are used about the First World War, they're not really appropriate. To find true senselessness and hopelessness is quite a difficult thing. It generally happens towards the fag end of battles and campaigns, as those in charge bitterly resist having to face up to failure. And the Battle of Scimitar Hill is just such a time. An unwinnable battle in a hopeless cause, pursuing a questionably-worthwile ultimate goal. Soon it will be entirely impossible for the British Government to ignore the need for a major strategic rethink of the Gallipoli campaign. But for now, there's only an impartially-blazing hillside, remorselessly swallowing up the wounded. Meanwhile, the French government calls a vote of confidence in itself, as proxy for General Joffre and minister of war Millerand. They win an overwhelming victory and Joffre's position is secure. For the moment. As long as they can achieve something with the autumn offensives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:That line of thinking continued on and was a major part of (failed) early WWI doctrine, right? Correct. Since this was the most recent major European war, the majority of doctrine was drawn from this war. Other conclusions were drawn, mainly from the experiences of the effects on firepower used in defensive positions by European colonial soldiers and the casualties sustained in taking entrenched positions in the Russo-Japanese wars, but for a bunch of reasons (including European parochialism) these were disregarded by the various high commands. Organisation and mobility were a factor in the crushing defeat of the French by the Prussians, but another was the two sides differing emphasis on firepower. The French relied primarily on well-drilled musketry backed up by artillery, while the Prussians emphasised their artillery arm much more, to devastating effect. This is a debate that carried on well in WWI - most people remember the cavalry officers desperately trying to keep their arm relevant in an increasingly mechanised war, but infantry officers did their fair share of handwringing as well. Many officers (particularly the British) were concerned that musketry and rifles skills were disappearing from the battlefield and tried to keep them fresh in doctrine, as they felt that the average infantryman was becoming nothing more than a bayonet carrier to follow up after the artillery had done their dirty work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:the average infantryman was becoming nothing more than a bayonet carrier to follow up after the artillery had done their dirty work. It's a good thing they turned out to be glorified forward observers and a means to pin the enemy till artillery arrives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
I just like to state a moment this thread is pretty awesome. Where else on the internet can you not only read WW1 day by day, but also extensive coverage on non WW2 conflicts the rest of the world sadly has forgotten. All the goons contributing majorly in this thread huge props to you all. I eagerly look forward to every update about the Taiping Rebellion, silly German soldier antics, Poland stuff and now the Triple Alliance War.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I just like to state a moment this thread is pretty awesome. Where else on the internet can you not only read WW1 day by day, but also extensive coverage on non WW2 conflicts the rest of the world sadly has forgotten. Yeah longtime lurker, the WW1 day by day, crazy Christian Chinese rebellion and Hay Gal's stuff in particular has been stunningly excellent but the general level of posting here is fantastic. This is easily one of my favorite threads on the forum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The CSA would never give slaves guns because they knew exactly where they'd end up pointing. Technically, they did arm some slaves. Right at the very end there are some slaves drilling in Richmond just before it fell. I don't think any ever saw combat though as the order was signed in early March and Richmond fell in early April. To the broader question of the quality of the soldiers in the armies, well they were people. Some more trained and some less. Initially there was very little discipline or training on either side but particularly on the northern side. There are certainly accounts of immigrants getting off the boat and into the enlistment line. I think that by 1863 though you would be hard pressed to provide any evidence that the line units on either side were in any way inferior to their continental counterparts. By 1865 several of the Union Corps would have been considered elite by any reckoning (as would the Army of Northern Virginia had it been in good supply and morale).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:All the goons contributing majorly in this thread huge props to you all. I eagerly look forward to every update about the Taiping Rebellion, silly German soldier antics, Poland stuff and now the Triple Alliance War. I broke my left arm and can't do heavy duty posting now, even if I have more time than I have any idea what to do with.  But they're taking it off in two weeks' time, and I'll still have September largely free!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Technically, they did arm some slaves. Right at the very end there are some slaves drilling in Richmond just before it fell. I don't think any ever saw combat though as the order was signed in early March and Richmond fell in early April. Incidentally, every indication I got is that while a decent amount of the pre Civil War Army was more oriented to frontier stuff, the army they put together for the Mexican American War wasn't that bad and the horse artillery was world-class and did still matter. Both the US and Mexicans got great use out of their units of US horse artillery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh those Fenians xthetenth posted:Pictured: How the US got a lot of its recruits for the Mexican-American War. I know this is from a few pages back but; Also pictured: How Mexico got a lot of Its recruits for the Mexican-American War.  Hey, Bobby Kennedy was more then a century away at this point in American history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Technically, they did arm some slaves. Right at the very end there are some slaves drilling in Richmond just before it fell. I don't think any ever saw combat though as the order was signed in early March and Richmond fell in early April. What I read was that most of these slaves deserted as soon as they got the clothes and blankets they'd been promised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:What I read was that most of these slaves deserted as soon as they got the clothes and blankets they'd been promised. They did. Which was part of what many Southerners opposed to arming slaves feared would happen. The other part being that they'd immediately point their guns at the Southerners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think that by 1863 though you would be hard pressed to provide any evidence that the line units on either side were in any way inferior to their continental counterparts. By 1865 several of the Union Corps would have been considered elite by any reckoning (as would the Army of Northern Virginia had it been in good supply and morale). I'd say even earlier than 1863 (although not by much). Battle of Fredericksburg at Marye's Heights, for example, the Union army assaulted the Confederates entrenched behind a stone wall something like a dozen times over the course of a day, losing several thousand men in the process.That doesn't happens without having a professional, disciplined, and very brave, army.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:I know this is from a few pages back but; Yuuup. xthetenth posted:Both the US and Mexicans got great use out of their units of US horse artillery. Los San Patricios are a really interesting bit of history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I'd say even earlier than 1863 (although not by much). Battle of Fredericksburg at Marye's Heights, for example, the Union army assaulted the Confederates entrenched behind a stone wall something like a dozen times over the course of a day, losing several thousand men in the process.That doesn't happens without having a professional, disciplined, and very brave, army. Nobody really doubted the soldiers on each side in the ACW, it's more that the US army had no conception of how to manage armies of a hundred thousand strong prior to the war (I don't think there was even an established staff college until afterwards) and it shows in a lot of the early battles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Gotta give thanks to McClellan at least for something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I've got a question that might have come up before, but I don't think I've run across it. What are some of the strangest tank designs to come out of the last hundred years? Like, have there been any tanks with twin barrels on the same turret?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
SquadronROE posted:I've got a question that might have come up before, but I don't think I've run across it. What are some of the strangest tank designs to come out of the last hundred years? Like, have there been any tanks with twin barrels on the same turret? I don't think that two guns in one turret counts as strangest. The original KV-1 design had a 45 mm gun in the turret, replaced with a machinegun before the tank saw combat.  KV-7. Stalin's idea to put three guns (2x45, 1x76 mm) into a fixed casemate on a KV-1 chassis, later reduced to 2x76 mm. Never saw mass production, but the design was used as the basis for the SU-152.   SU-122-2: same as the SU-122 we all know and love, but twice as good! Never produced.  ST-II. A redesigned turret for the IS-4 chassis, aimed at maximizing the rate of fire and letting the tank continue operating even while one loader is using the AA MG. Never produced.  Koalitsiya-SV, technically an SPG, not a tank. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
