|
So what I'm getting from the U.C chat isn't so much that it was the best at anything, but that it was so cheap, easy to produce, and "good enough" for a wide variety of tasks that it was basically a living embodiment of "better one okay thing here and now than a perfect one too far and too late"?
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
galagazombie posted:So what I'm getting from the U.C chat isn't so much that it was the best at anything, but that it was so cheap, easy to produce, and "good enough" for a wide variety of tasks that it was basically a living embodiment of "better one okay thing here and now than a perfect one too far and too late"? Basically. An over-engineered answer is worse anyways, just look at German heavy tanks 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:So what I'm getting from the U.C chat isn't so much that it was the best at anything, but that it was so cheap, easy to produce, and "good enough" for a wide variety of tasks that it was basically a living embodiment of "better one okay thing here and now than a perfect one too far and too late"? I'd argue that it was more than a good enough light utility vehicle for the British. The notion of "perfect" equipment rapidly evaporates in a war. British equipment is best when they threw out all preconceptions of aesthetics. Take a google image search safari of all the light Brit afvs and marvel at the new angular ubermaschinen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
What happened to the equipment lost at Dunkirk? I have the idea it was used to arm German auxiliaries recruited from conquered populaces, but I don't know where I saw this and if it's accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:What happened to the equipment lost at Dunkirk? I have the idea it was used to arm German auxiliaries recruited from conquered populaces, but I don't know where I saw this and if it's accurate. The Germans almost always (and I mean always) put captured stuff to use with auxiliary/occupation forces. Even a lot of French guns captured in 1940 were used in the defenses at Normandy 4 years later because: A. Its better than nothing; B. Your war production is going to a more important front. For Dunkirk, I imagine that anything they captured in a large enough quantity got re-used in their forces. Otherwise, research and war trophies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
The Germans are the RPG player, the captured equipment is loot and German production is the crafting/enchantment system that makes better stuff than you loot. WWII is a lovely RPG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:What happened to the equipment lost at Dunkirk? I have the idea it was used to arm German auxiliaries recruited from conquered populaces, but I don't know where I saw this and if it's accurate. Much more than arms were lost. British field tents were considered far superior to the German equivalent and there's plenty of stories of Luftwaffe personnel involved in the battle of Britain taking field trips to Dunkirk because for weeks after the evacuation the area was an enormous open-air depot for anything military you might want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
The USA is That Guy who buys 10 foot ladders, disassembles them to get 2 10 foot poles to sell for a profit and gets infinite money before the start of the game
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Yesterday I scanned a proviant-rechnung, provisions accounting list, for part of some cavalry companies Mansfeld led in 1624, a year before he raised the regiment that's my main concern. It's not for all the companies, just two or three of them; presumably, the captains of the other companies kept their own books. The book is bound in what I think is rawhide, tied shut with leather thongs. It's in very good condition. (Edit: The documents I study are really cool as objects, not just sources of information. How books are bound, what they're made of, whether or not there's mud on the pages...I love this poo poo)  A cavalry company in this period is about thirty combatants, which means about sixty or seventy men total since each combatant has at least one Jung, assistant or servant. They go through ridiculous amounts of hay, straw, grain, bread, meat, live cattle, etc, but here's Mansfeld's company's beer account.  A cask of beer a day for several weeks, and that's not counting Ferner Extra Ordinarii, when they tap a cask when someone comes to visit or something. Multiply that by seven and that's how much beer Mansfeld's entire cav compliment consumes. Edit: I'm saying things like "group of cavalry companies" because as far as I know cavalry is not organized into "regiments." So the muster rolls for these guys will say things like "Seven Companies Of Cavalry Led By Wolff Von Mansfeld." HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yesterday I scanned a proviant-rechnung, provisions accounting list, for part of some cavalry companies Mansfeld led in 1624, a year before he raised the regiment that's my main concern. It's not for all the companies, just two or three of them; presumably, the captains of the other companies kept their own books. What's the In per person consumption? Do we have any idea on the average volume of a cask?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:What's the In per person consumption? Do we have any idea on the average volume of a cask? Lots
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:What's the In per person consumption? Do we have any idea on the average volume of a cask?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:What's the In per person consumption? Do we have any idea on the average volume of a cask? a butt would be 476.96 litres
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:a butt would be 476.96 litres Speak for yourself 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:32
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The USA is That Guy who buys 10 foot ladders, disassembles them to get 2 10 foot poles to sell for a profit and gets infinite money before the start of the game The UK is that player that played the previous game, assumes they know what they are doing and then blunders through half of it by the seat of their underpants constantly broke until they stumble into the first NPC companion. Then it hoards like crazy stuff that won't help in the end game.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
And then the player decides he needs all this extraneous bullshit which he maintains is of vital important, like every British tank being able to produce tea. On the odd occasion it does come in handy the player just will not stop bragging. (Looking at you Captain Savage)HEY GAL posted:Edit: I'm saying things like "group of cavalry companies" because as far as I know cavalry is not organized into "regiments." So the muster rolls for these guys will say things like "Seven Companies Of Cavalry Led By Wolff Von Mansfeld." Wouldn't they be Squadrons? In Britain it's an old tradition that the cavalry equivalent of a foot regiment was called a squadron. Cavalry sergeants were called "Corporals of Horse" since Sergeant has the same roots as servant and the gentlemen were never going to let themselves be called servants. This has half died off now. Only the Household Cavalry still hold the rank and are now regiments. Turns out every branch of the British Armed Forces has a different name for the rank of Sergeant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:And then the player decides he needs all this extraneous bullshit which he maintains is of vital important, like every British tank being able to produce tea. On the odd occasion it does come in handy the player just will not stop bragging. (Looking at you Captain Savage) Hegel is writing about the 17th century, though, which is, y'know, also old. The New Model Army certainly seems to have specifically had regiments of horse, subdivided into troops. Edit: and are you sure about the modern squadron = regiment thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_Cavalry suggests squadron equals company, not an old version of regiment. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:And then the player decides he needs all this extraneous bullshit which he maintains is of vital important, like every British tank being able to produce tea. On the odd occasion it does come in handy the player just will not stop bragging. (Looking at you Captain Savage) Napoleon didn't have hot tea in Russia, and his army froze to death. This is British ingenuity at its finest: making the French look bad. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:And then the player decides he needs all this extraneous bullshit which he maintains is of vital important, like every British tank being able to produce tea. On the odd occasion it does come in handy the player just will not stop bragging. (Looking at you Captain Savage) At least in the Napoleonic era, a Squadron is a sort of company-plus-sized element that is the basic tactical element of the regiment. A KGL Hussar regiment during the Peninsular campaing consisted of about 450-500 troopers organized in four squadrons of about 120 men each. Each squadron was divided in to two troops, each under the charge of a Captain (this is a true company sized element of about fifty to sixty, but troops rarely maneuvered independently, unlike infantry companies.) Squadrons were frequently detached and fought independently of the regiment, with greater frequency than detached infantry companies. Basically what I'm trying to say is that squadron is not equivalent to regiment. There's no true one-to-one comparison, because even similar sized elements are treated differently. And you can also get a good read via colors and honors - the squadrons carry own colors, but only one squadron in the regiment receives a King's color (or an Eagle, for the French). The others carry squadron-specific subordinate colors. The regiment as a whole receives the battle honors, not the individual squadrons where detached.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The Germans almost always (and I mean always) put captured stuff to use with auxiliary/occupation forces. Even a lot of French guns captured in 1940 were used in the defenses at Normandy 4 years later because: A. Its better than nothing; B. Your war production is going to a more important front. Hell, they were still using Czech stuff that they stole in 1939, before the war started, in 1945. Basically the Third Reich was funded by looting everything in Europe and the struggle against the Third Reich was funded by American money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Basically the Third Reich was funded by looting everything in Europe and the struggle against the Third Reich was funded by American money. Um, well, not entirely. Especially early on, all that gear Britain was getting from America wasn't free, Britain either had to pay for it in cash money or by giving up basing rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Wouldn't they be Squadrons? In Britain it's an old tradition that the cavalry equivalent of a foot regiment was called a squadron. Cavalry sergeants were called "Corporals of Horse" since Sergeant has the same roots as servant and the gentlemen were never going to let themselves be called servants. And my dudes appear to think sergeant means "someone charged with a task," so they often spell it Chargeant, unwittingly coming up with an apt characterization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm getting the distinct impression that recon in those days was approached with a 'gotta break some eggs' approach that modern sensibilities find unacceptable. It is actually pretty much identical for armored forces today, except modern recon vehicles have much better sensor suites. I get the impression people are thinking heavy recon is some sort of suicide mission or something...it really isn't like that at all. It is done as part of a much larger combined arms ISR plan that uses everything from satellites to JSTARS to rotary wing to ground vehicles to develop the situation. The guys on the ground aren't rolling around blind waiting patiently to get ambushed, they're nearly always moving towards a specific suspected enemy formation and attempting to pin down its exact disposition. Most of the fighting that takes place is actually counter-recon, a kind of screening. It was much the same way in WWII, just with less tech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It is actually pretty much identical for armored forces today, except modern recon vehicles have much better sensor suites. I must be dense, but I still don't get it how they did in WWII. Say, you have a spiffy new puma or 4...
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I must be dense, but I still don't get it how they did in WWII. Say, you have a spiffy new puma or 4... I think those were only fielded by the Panzer divisions, so picture this within the context of a WWII armored division's operations. You're a division commander. You've been given a mission to take a town. You've got a map up of your AO that has your subordinate units, neighboring units, and suspected enemy unit locations. Your intel section is constantly updating this map based on aerial observation, light recon, signals intelligence, etc etc. So, you have a rough idea of where opposing units are, but you don't know how exactly they are disposed, where the weak/strong points are, and so on. This is important information to have as you plan an attack, so you send for your recon battalion commander. You give him several key positions to reconnoiter, with the objective of confirming enemy presence and strength at each one. You also ask your corps commander to give you access to an observation aircraft to support the ground recon. Now, you're the recon battalion commander. You have, say, eight spots on the map that your division commander wants to you take a look at. You've got four troops (I think? I'm not really sure) of Pumas, so you assign each of those troop commanders to assess enemy dispositions at each of these spots. You also coordinate artillery and air support for the recon operation. Now, you're a recon troop commander. You've got your 4 Pumas and two grids that you have to assess. You know that hostile recon forces are out and about, but your division S2 thinks that there won't be any heavy forces moving in your direction. At the first objective, you just pick a good concealed spot and observe for a while from a distance, count tanks, vehicles, etc. At the second spot, it is heavily concealed by terrain so in order to develop the situation some you fire into spots that look like they might be occupied, trying to draw out some of the opposition. Once you get a good assessment, you call for smoke and break contact. You're able to inform your battalion commander that you think there's an infantry battalion at objective one, and a full regiment with an armor company at objective two. Your battalion commander then informs the division 2 what the recon battalion discovered, which allows him to update the maps and give the division commander a better assessment of where his efforts should concentrate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Um, well, not entirely. Especially early on, all that gear Britain was getting from America wasn't free, Britain either had to pay for it in cash money or by giving up basing rights. He didn't say it was free, just that it was funded by American money. An unsecured loan with low interest rates is pretty good deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
How is recon handled at sea? You can't really have small scout boats in blue water navies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:How is recon handled at sea? You can't really have small scout boats in blue water navies. Thats a pretty open ended question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Thats a pretty open ended question. Sure, so maybe more closely - How was it handled before the advent of radar, in a blue water Navy? So maybe WW1? For the purposes of discovering enemy fleets/minefields/other hazards, and spotting for long-range fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Sure, so maybe more closely - How was it handled before the advent of radar, in a blue water Navy? So maybe WW1? For the purposes of discovering enemy fleets/minefields/other hazards, and spotting for long-range fire. Generally you sailed whichever ship(s) you felt was most expendable over there. Battlecruiser squadrons were supposed to go somewhere and out-shoot the enemy scouting ships, then run away from anything they couldn't outshoot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Generally you sailed whichever ship(s) you felt was most expendable over there. Battlecruiser squadrons were supposed to go somewhere and out-shoot the enemy scouting ships, then run away from anything they couldn't outshoot. So things like destroyers would function as "scouting ships"? Or whatever the lightest vessel you have in your fleet is? I mean, I think I understand that a fleet would be directed to go to a place in support of a ground mission, but if they were directed to go somewhere with the purpose of finding an enemy fleet or convoy, how did they determine the exact location before radar or carriers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So things like destroyers would function as "scouting ships"? Or whatever the lightest vessel you have in your fleet is? I mean, I think I understand that a fleet would be directed to go to a place in support of a ground mission, but if they were directed to go somewhere with the purpose of finding an enemy fleet or convoy, how did they determine the exact location before radar or carriers? Mostly guesswork. They'd start with the last known position and heading then try to guess where it was going. From that they would guess it's most probable route and where it ought to be at a given time. Then send a destroyer or other small ship out to the area to have a look around. A plume of smoke from a boiler could be seen from quite a ways away. Fishermen and cargo ships were good sources of information.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So things like destroyers would function as "scouting ships"? Or whatever the lightest vessel you have in your fleet is? I mean, I think I understand that a fleet would be directed to go to a place in support of a ground mission, but if they were directed to go somewhere with the purpose of finding an enemy fleet or convoy, how did they determine the exact location before radar or carriers? The scout would rush back and signal/radio the location. Or you could just head toward whatever the scout is running away from
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
That is also a huge part of why as soon as airplanes were even halfway reliable navies started strapping them onto warships as catapult-launched recon. For a damned long time airplanes were a vital part of naval recon, long before they became an effective strike force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Hrm. That makes sense, so I suppose the earliest scout planes on naval vessels would be pontoon planes fired off before a battle and recovered sometime after it? I'm guessing it'd be really hard to recover a plane while getting shot at. Also if I'm thinking of my military aviation right, the earliest carrier-launched scouts were probably around WW1 right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Hrm. That makes sense, so I suppose the earliest scout planes on naval vessels would be pontoon planes fired off before a battle and recovered sometime after it? I'm guessing it'd be really hard to recover a plane while getting shot at. About. The first successful catapult launch from a warship underway was in 1915. Also it was less "launch them right before battle" and more just having them constantly up and looking when you suspected the enemy was nearby. Warshps of that era were expected to do their own fire control. Rather than being flying artillery spotters they were used when there was a good reason to believe the enemy was nearby but they didn't know where. It should also be noted that flying boats were also pretty big during this era for the same thing. The USN got the Curtis Model H in 1910, and by the time you get into the 20s seaplane tenders are a pretty big thing. If you're not in the middle of the Pacific a seaplane probably has enough legs to give you an idea of what is around the area of operations for your fleet. Same general idea with the blimps. A lot of the idea was to generally replace patrol vessels with aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Um, well, not entirely. Especially early on, all that gear Britain was getting from America wasn't free, Britain either had to pay for it in cash money or by giving up basing rights. Destroyers for bases was a a pretty transparent effort to directly supply the British war effort. SquadronROE posted:So things like destroyers would function as "scouting ships"? Or whatever the lightest vessel you have in your fleet is? I mean, I think I understand that a fleet would be directed to go to a place in support of a ground mission, but if they were directed to go somewhere with the purpose of finding an enemy fleet or convoy, how did they determine the exact location before radar or carriers? Not the absolute lightest ship per se. Scouting ships usually need to have a certain size and self-sufficiency, lest they succumb to the sea gods before contacting an enemy fleet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Hrm. That makes sense, so I suppose the earliest scout planes on naval vessels would be pontoon planes fired off before a battle and recovered sometime after it? I'm guessing it'd be really hard to recover a plane while getting shot at. Yeah, the Brits had a good variety of carriers/tenders in WWI. Some even weren't actively hazardous to the pilots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah, the Brits had a good variety of carriers/tenders in WWI. Some even weren't actively hazardous to the pilots. Yeah, a little light googling turns up the HMS Engadine, a seaplane tender that participated in the Battle of Jutland. THat was the first heavier-than-air use of areal recon during a naval battle. edit: huh, some further reading shows that 1915 date for the first launch was just the US. The brits were doing it by 1912.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So things like destroyers would function as "scouting ships"? Or whatever the lightest vessel you have in your fleet is? I mean, I think I understand that a fleet would be directed to go to a place in support of a ground mission, but if they were directed to go somewhere with the purpose of finding an enemy fleet or convoy, how did they determine the exact location before radar or carriers? Not destroyers, the protected cruiser was basically specifically designed for this role. Early destroyers are too low to get good sighting radii and don't have the endurance to keep up with a fleet and spend a lot of time steaming at 24/28/32kt (depending on era) If you were tasked to go to a specific area and search for a convoy, you would likely keep the core of your striking force (say, a couple of Armored Cruisers) together. Then you would string out your light cruisers in a search line - parallel courses, and basically hope that you blundered in to something. In good weather, you can see about 20-25,000 yards from a cruiser sized warship, and coal-powered ships throw up a hell of a lot of smoke at speed. Once you sight a thing, the sighting ship signals down the chain so that everyone knows, hey, HMS Dickface sees smoke! Then the ship goes off to shadow. CLs are fast, and so they try to get in a nice visual range where they can determine range, bearing etc. If it's a big bad enemy ship, the CL backs off and uses its superior speed to keep the range wide enough that it doesn't get sunk. Meanwhile, your big bad bruisers are coming up to get involved. There is signalling the whole way, either via flag, or later via wireless. Things frequently did not find each other due to weather, nightfall, and the ocean being a big loving place. The thing is, there are only so many established sea lanes so you have a good idea of where things ought to be. Everyone had a huge boner for the rigid airship in a scouting role - it's faster than the fleet, it has phenomenal loiter time, and it's a very stable observational platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:01
|
|