|
HEY GAL posted:wedgewood is a good intro even though i learned a while ago she based lots of her stuff on published materials from the 19th century So one thing that interest me, as an English early modernist, is do you have religious armies in the 30 years war? So, for example, the Putney debates seem to suggest that the rank and file of the army were as much, if not more, concerned with the theology of their cause as the commanders. Are there similar movements in the 30 years war? And how did language work? Did the Catholic armies just muddle through, or did they adopt a lingua franca? I suppose the underlying question is what did all these people fighting and dying think they were doing? Was it just paid work, or did your standard pikeman care about the politics of it? Were the Swedes good soldiers because they believed in their King, or were they just well drilled? Why were the English so poo poo (seriously, why couldn't the English ever muster a sober army at any battle ever)? Did soldiers ever have their throats slit by fanatical partisans, or did the peasants just let the armed folk get on with it? Is Frances Yates taken seriously as a scholar? I loved The Art of Memory, but I'd assumed it was dubious.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:currently reading Six Galleons for the King of Spain, by Carla Phillips. I'm on Chap 3 right now, which has a lot of detailed, granular information on how they built ships in the 16th and 17th century, and SEXMAN, if you're into the earlier history of the profession you study you should give this a look, it's p. boss Definitely gonna buy this. Dammit, my backlog of books is long enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:So one thing that interest me, as an English early modernist, is do you have religious armies in the 30 years war? So, for example, the Putney debates seem to suggest that the rank and file of the army were as much, if not more, concerned with the theology of their cause as the commanders. Are there similar movements in the 30 years war? And sometimes the guys cared about religion, sometimes I don't think so. My subjects are a regiment recruited in Saxony, Bohemia, and Brandenburg, headed by a Protestant whose immediate inferiors are one Protestant and two Catholics. And while the colonel is a Protestant all three of his brothers converted to Catholicism and he himself will convert a few years after the regiment I study disbands. He has one of his appointments from the Elector of Saxony (as Lutheran as it is possible to get) and one from the King of Spain. The regiment's Artikell-Briefe (translated into English as Articles of War, one of the legal foundations of the regiment), while it enjoins the soldiers to further King Phillip IV's aims, pray for his success in arms, and pursue his enemies over land and sea etc, mentions every single one of his titles except "Most Catholic Monarch." The colonel will use that title, however, in his correspondence with the Governor of Milan, so there's a difference between how the regiment talks to itself and how it talks to the outside. However, although the common soldiers might not care, and many officers don't, many officers do--I'm currently reading letters from a colonel named Rudolf Wolff von Ossa zu Dehla, who's handling things for the colonel of the imperialist Sulz Regiment, who's probably sick. He's counting the little towns around the place where the Sulz Regiment is and listing them by religion and adherence to either the Catholic League or the "most harmful Union" (the Protestant Union), I think to determine who gets soldiers quartered on them that winter. He cares a lot. I don't think there are any religiously-inflected outbursts of soldierly leftism, like in England, though. But I think the English are far more likely to be literate than my subjects are, so they'd learn about that and become politically engaged. quote:And how did language work? Did the Catholic armies just muddle through, or did they adopt a lingua franca? quote:I suppose the underlying question is what did all these people fighting and dying think they were doing? Was it just paid work, or did your standard pikeman care about the politics of it? I think some people cared about politics because this age saw the beginnings of widespread lay literacy. There has to be some sort of audience for all those satirical woodcuts. I have never heard any one of my dudes mention politics. Their colonel "always wants to serve a member of the praiseworthy House of Austria" though. quote:Were the Swedes good soldiers because they believed in their King, or were they just well drilled? quote:Why were the English so poo poo (seriously, why couldn't the English ever muster a sober army at any battle ever)? quote:Did soldiers ever have their throats slit by fanatical partisans, or did the peasants just let the armed folk get on with it? quote:Is Frances Yates taken seriously as a scholar? I loved The Art of Memory, but I'd assumed it was dubious.  nothing weird here HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I thought the Putney Debates were medium-level officers, rather than the rank and file. Exactly the right level of people to be educated enough to think about politics and powerless enough to be dissatisfied. Thank you for those excellent answers. I'm not going to claim some great knowledge of the New Model Army, but everything I've read suggest that among the radical regiments (which were certainly a minority) the selection of agitators was very democratic. That's not to say that the people selected were typical of the troopers, but they were able to persuade the troopers to vote them in. I'd be amazed if any of the "ironsides" (I'm using that term to mean any nonconformist cavalry soldiers) weren't educated, by the standards of the time. Given the cash requirement to be a trooper, we shouldn't think of the cavalry regiments as some sort of voice of the people. What the views of the roundhead pikeman were, I certainly don't know. Honestly, I kind of glaze over when the battles start, but it seems like the parliamentarian infantry always lost, or ran away. I can't think of a major infantry victory by the roundheads, at least against royalist forces. Perhaps that reflects a lack of involvement in the cause? It always seems odd to me that we call the royalists "cavaliers" given how badly managed their cavalry was, throwing away victory at least twice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
I love the discreet pentagram in the corner. By the way, there may be something esoteric going on. edit: Hexagram, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Another quasi exception is peasant uprisings, some of which were a big enough deal to be little wars in themselves. Pappenheim made his name fighting a peasant uprising, by the way. I know basically nothing about European peasant uprisings. Did these uprisings tend to invoke religious or sectarian ideology, or were they strictly economically focused?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
I'm interested in reading more on tank combat, would anybody recommend me some titles? Preferably fiction but nonfiction titles are also appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Did you read the attached article? They believed it did. The difference between the trappings of their culture and things that were objectively fact weren't clear to them. I remember looking at an excerpt from Army Beta, which showed a house without a chimney, asking soldiers "what's missing in this picture?" The soldiers from southern Italy put a cross on top, which was customary there, and were marked off for that question. I should have been more clear. I was talking about the Alpha test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Did you read the attached article? They believed it did. The difference between the trappings of their culture and things that were objectively fact weren't clear to them. I remember looking at an excerpt from Army Beta, which showed a house without a chimney, asking soldiers "what's missing in this picture?" The soldiers from southern Italy put a cross on top, which was customary there, and were marked off for that question. If you can keep Italians out of your army you're doing a great job 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:If you can keep Italians out of your army you're doing a great job Nah, just keep them out of the leadership. Or just hire them as naval saboteurs. The Italians were shockingly good at naval special ops during the world wars. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Did they do that by trying to operate the boat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Did they do that by trying to operate the boat? Nope. Limpet mines and towed explosive charges. Also some of the first effective motor torpedo boats. You should read links instead of relying on national stereotypes. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Their light infantry was quite good as well, for what it's worth Rommel thought quite highly of them. Unfortunately the Germans tended to use them in situations were they weren't effective as they could be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
worlds_best_author posted:I'm interested in reading more on tank combat, would anybody recommend me some titles? Preferably fiction but nonfiction titles are also appreciated. Any period in particular? For cold war I recommend "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle and "Chieftains" by Bob Forrest-Webb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:So that leaves what, just drinking 24/7? The gently caress's wrong with that? T___A posted:Unfortunately the Germans tended to use them in situations were they weren't effective as they could be.  this is like nazi war doctrine 101 - if it wasn't a complete deathtrap out of the factory, command is going to find a role for it where each and every strength is negated and every weakness is highlighted.
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
This leaves the impression that the guys that opposed them were bumbling chucklefucks, because even with the bombing, the industrial capacity and fighting on multiple fronts, it still took them years to reign Jerry in, and at considerable cost. T___A posted:Their light infantry was quite good as well, for what it's worth Rommel thought quite highly of them. Unfortunately the Germans tended to use them in situations were they weren't effective as they could be. ...and still better than they were used by Italians. ArchangeI posted:Any period in particular? For cold war I recommend "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle and "Chieftains" by Bob Forrest-Webb. Isn't Team Yankee the one their basing the new Flames of War game on? EDIT: From the Italian sabotage stuff, WWI sinking of an Austrian ship by MAS boats: Only 89 sailors died—41 from Hungary—the low death toll partly attributed to the fact that all sailors with the KuK Navy had to learn to swim before entering active service. Did some WWI navies think that swimming is an optional skill for sailors? JcDent fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
JcDent posted:This leaves the impression that the guys that opposed them were bumbling chucklefucks, because even with the bombing, the industrial capacity and fighting on multiple fronts, it still took them years to reign Jerry in, and at considerable cost. Jerry had a bit of a head start
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
JcDent posted:This leaves the impression that the guys that opposed them were bumbling chucklefucks, because even with the bombing, the industrial capacity and fighting on multiple fronts, it still took them years to reign Jerry in, and at considerable cost. Industrial wars favor the defender, especially when one of the attackers is halfway around the world. The early sweeping successes were very much out of the norm compared to the slog afterwards and attributable to many different causes such as being vastly outnumbered and blindsided (Poland), serious control, political malaise, and leadership issues (France/England), and post-purge clusterfuck (Russia)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Okay the MG42 wasn't a complete clusterfuck of an invention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
JcDent posted:This leaves the impression that the guys that opposed them were bumbling chucklefucks, because even with the bombing, the industrial capacity and fighting on multiple fronts, it still took them years to reign Jerry in, and at considerable cost. The guys fighting Nazi Germany made some very severe mistakes early and just weren't ready. Being ready for a war is a big help. And about swimming, even in the mid-late 1900s merchant sailors and fishers in some places kept traditions of if you get washed ashore it's probably just best to go quick "alive".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did some WWI navies think that swimming is an optional skill for sailors? This really isn't that weird, because a significant part of the time, being able to swim just means you die slower when your ship goes under.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Any period in particular? For cold war I recommend "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle and "Chieftains" by Bob Forrest-Webb. 
worlds_best_author fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
worlds_best_author posted:Fury was an excellent movie Are you trolling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
could you give some examples of the latter
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
worlds_best_author posted:WW2 in partit but not exclusively. Fury was an excellent movie No! Bad poster! Look what you did LOOK WHAT YOU DID
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Okay the MG42 wasn't a complete clusterfuck of an invention. When you're short of literally everything, is 'can fire faster than any other MG' really a selling point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:When you're short of literally everything, is 'can fire faster than any other MG' really a selling point? The MG42 was converted to 7,62 after the war and is still in heavy use in first-world militaries around the world, which is not something a lot of other WWII weapons can say. The only one that comes to mind is the M2 Browning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Nope. Limpet mines and towed explosive charges. Also some of the first effective motor torpedo boats. My people, the americans, aren't known for being strong readers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:When you're short of literally everything, is 'can fire faster than any other MG' really a selling point? Yeah? Machineguns are kind of like shotguns in that they fire bursts of bullets at you, and the more a MG can pump at you in a short burst the higher the chance that some of the bullets hit you and the tighter the grouping stays. MG42 could sling the same amount of bullets at you in a second as a Bren or DP-28 could in two seconds. Since the enemy infantryman is not walking toward you upright but leaping from cover to cover, there is some value to that. MG42 was a good design mainly for other reasons than a higher ROF, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Yeah? Machineguns are kind of like shotguns in that they fire bursts of bullets at you, and the more a MG can pump at you in a short burst the higher the chance that some of the bullets hit you and the tighter the grouping stays. MG42 could sling the same amount of bullets at you in a second as a Bren or DP-28 could in two seconds. Since the enemy infantryman is not walking toward you upright but leaping from cover to cover, there is some value to that. MG42 was a good design mainly for other reasons than a higher ROF, though. I think when your supplies are so short that the ROF of your machineguns is an issue, you have bigger problems than that. ArchangeI posted:The MG42 was converted to 7,62 after the war and is still in heavy use in first-world militaries around the world, which is not something a lot of other WWII weapons can say. The only one that comes to mind is the M2 Browning. They cut down the fire rate, too. I had a chance to lift it one recent military/civvy day. A hefty bitch, but otherwise, it's Red Orchestra 2 IRL, down to barrel change (thanks, random Belgian soldiers who showed it).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Bulgaria finishes its careful preparations for war by manufacturing a casus belli. Mimi and Toutou have reached a river at last (although if you think that's going to make the going any easier for them, not so much), General Foch launches his final attack of Third Artois (no prizes for guessing how it goes), and Louis Barthas is supposed to be involved in it, but a few well-placed German shells scatter the battalion as they move forward and that's that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
If you could keep a MG42 firing 24/7 without any stops (even to swap barrels - maybe if you kept firing until it jammed, then picked a new one) then it would consume 630 million rounds per year. Germany produced some 5280 million small arms rounds in 1944, enough to keep a total of eight (8) MG42's running non-stop. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:This leaves the impression that the guys that opposed them were bumbling chucklefucks, because even with the bombing, the industrial capacity and fighting on multiple fronts, it still took them years to reign Jerry in, and at considerable cost. I wonder how much further this anti-Wehraboo backlash will keep going. Apparently, according to a significant fraction of this thread, the Germans were fantastically lucky incompetent morons who somehow miraculously managed to stumble their way through Europe for the only reason that their opponents were propeller hat wearing buffoons who were too busy slipping on banana peels and getting knocked over comically to oppose them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:I wonder how much further this anti-Wehraboo backlash will keep going. Apparently, according to a significant fraction of this thread, the Germans were fantastically lucky incompetent morons who somehow miraculously managed to stumble their way through Europe for the only reason that their opponents were propeller hat wearing buffoons who were too busy slipping on banana peels and getting knocked over comically to oppose them. yup, and so were the 17th C Swedes
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:I wonder how much further this anti-Wehraboo backlash will keep going. Apparently, according to a significant fraction of this thread, the Germans were fantastically lucky incompetent morons who somehow miraculously managed to stumble their way through Europe for the only reason that their opponents were propeller hat wearing buffoons who were too busy slipping on banana peels and getting knocked over comically to oppose them. Happens in WWII LP threads that have more participation than two people. If you believe the vibe here, Nazis slapsticked their way through the war because man they're so stupid they probably couldn't breathe because they're Nazis
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:yup, and so were the 17th C Swedes Matthias Gallas Did Nothing Wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:I wonder how much further this anti-Wehraboo backlash will keep going. Apparently, according to a significant fraction of this thread, the Germans were fantastically lucky incompetent morons who somehow miraculously managed to stumble their way through Europe for the only reason that their opponents were propeller hat wearing buffoons who were too busy slipping on banana peels and getting knocked over comically to oppose them. The way I understand it, the Wermacht was above average in terms of armies that existed at the time, but its leadership had a bad case of being propeller hat wearing buffoons.  Then again, the traditional Partizan anti-tank tactic was staging fake tank-stealing raids, waiting for the Nazis to bring in anti-armor weaponry to fight off potential stolen tanks, and then stealing those in a real raid. Which implies a number of propeller hat wearing buffoons in the Nazi mid-level command too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:I wonder how much further this anti-Wehraboo backlash will keep going. Apparently, according to a significant fraction of this thread, the Germans were fantastically lucky incompetent morons who somehow miraculously managed to stumble their way through Europe for the only reason that their opponents were propeller hat wearing buffoons who were too busy slipping on banana peels and getting knocked over comically to oppose them. Yeah this is getting silly. They did some stupid shot but they weren't incompetent. They weren't the super soldiers of popular myth but they didn't gently caress up everything they touched. Also material shortages weren't their problem. They didn't suffer from a lack of small arms anmo. Oil? Sure. But the basics of arming your average infantry division were never a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
my dad posted:
How do you stage a fake tank stealing raid? Surely to get them to roll out the anti armour stuff, you'd need to hit a tank depo pretty hard, and by then you could just attack the place where anti tank stuff is stored in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:How do you stage a fake tank stealing raid? Surely to get them to roll out the anti armour stuff, you'd need to hit a tank depo pretty hard, and by then you could just attack the place where anti tank stuff is stored in the first place. The way I was told, mountains + surprise + panicking Nazis trying to explain the fuckup to higherups = vast exaggerations of Partizan numbers. (Also, I don't know if I phrased it well, but no tanks would be stolen. Just the possibility of the tanks eventually being stolen was enough to bring a few AT weapons closer to where the Partizans were located) Take this with a grain of salt, though. I got this from a few old vets who might have been pulling my leg. The sad thing about talking to eyewitnesses is that they might be bullshitting for random reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:48
|
|