|
Another thing about Rzhev and Mars is wasn't Model there on point? He's virtually the best defence General you could go up against.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The latter, one presumes, being closely connected to the former. Or vice versa 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Hey HEY GAL, here's a question - you've mentioned before that mercenaries would commonly get captured by the enemy, surrender, and end up working for the other side without a care in the world. But were there ever instances were a bunch of mercenaries on the winning side panicked or were pressured locally enough to surrender and turn coats, only to discover that their original side actually won the battle and they'd signed on to the losing side? What happens in these situations? Did the mercenaries usually try to switch sides back, or keep working for their new masters and hope for the best? And was there much shame attached to the idea of surrendering in the middle of a victory? Or, heck, was there even a sense that "Oh, hey, if they lost the battle that means they're REALLY in need of soldiers now which means we can draw up a great deal on the contract!"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
This seems relevant.quote:‘I meant, what was it that Angua said?’ said Carrot. (It's from Jingo, if you're struggling to place it.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Zhukov was there for thrashing the Japanese and was the one expected to be shot if Moscow was taken. I think he operated on an astounding amount of stress. I think he was good at managing armies and organizing the Red Army for tank warfare but seemed to me like he made reckless decisions due to a lack of Seriously, it was the soviet union in an existential war with The Nazis and his boss was a paranoid supervillain. A few hundred thousand lives needlessly lost here and there sort of lose meaning after a few years watching millions get turned into paste over a few hundred kilometres.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Seriously, it was the soviet union in an existential war with The Nazis and his boss was a paranoid supervillain. A few hundred thousand lives needlessly lost here and there sort of lose meaning after a few years watching millions get turned into paste over a few hundred kilometres. Yeah but needless losses and gently caress ups do add up. Quite a few times the Soviets would bleed themselves dry in a sector for no real gain that then opened them up to a counter attack from the Germans. Also, taking said heavy losses also usually precluded the completion of objectives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Hey HEY GAL, here's a question - you've mentioned before that mercenaries would commonly get captured by the enemy, surrender, and end up working for the other side without a care in the world. But were there ever instances were a bunch of mercenaries on the winning side panicked or were pressured locally enough to surrender and turn coats, only to discover that their original side actually won the battle and they'd signed on to the losing side? What happens in these situations? Did the mercenaries usually try to switch sides back, or keep working for their new masters and hope for the best? And was there much shame attached to the idea of surrendering in the middle of a victory? breitenfeld went like this: 0. someone from the swedish side literally rides out and hands tilly a note from gustavus adolphus and It's On 1. cannons fire for about two hours 2. pappenheim gets tired of this and charges baner's cav. he's on the imperialist left. tilly is heard to say "You will deprive us of the victory and the Emperor of his lands and people," so he's mad 3. the cav on the imperialist right, seeing this happen, thinks everything is starting, so they advance as well. they attack the saxons on the swedish left. 4. the saxons waver and the imperialist infantry presses the attack. these saxons are brand new and they had just been cannonnaded for two hours straight. they are also in very "bookish," small formations--the sort of thing protestant military theorists have been thinking about since maurice of nassau. these are less strong than tilly's spanish escuadrons. whatever the cause, they crumble. 5. the swedes attack the imperialist infantry while they're dealing with the saxons. not only are these formations vulnerable to getting attacked from two directions at once, lots of the imperialists had to walk past the swedes to get to the saxons. most of the imperialists fold, but four escuadrons do not surrender. at some point during this fight, tilly and aldringen are both wounded severely, but both will live. 6. that night, the imperialists retreat in disorder and everyone deserts. gg. were there any saxons that tried to get quarter from any imperialists and also service, only to be surprised later when the swedes saved the day? i'm not aware of any. looking through monro's autobiography I don't find any, but he was with the Swedes so he might not have seen it happen. if i find any i will let you know, tho look how monro describes the battle, he spends most of the time barely knowing what the gently caress: 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Yeah but needless losses and gently caress ups do add up. Quite a few times the Soviets would bleed themselves dry in a sector for no real gain that then opened them up to a counter attack from the Germans. Also, taking said heavy losses also usually precluded the completion of objectives. zhukov was pretty tolerant of attrition warfare. he knew that the soviets had a manpower advantage over the germans, and those meatgrinders kept german formations in place and out of sorts for other things to happen at least, this is how i've had the surprising longevity of operation mars explained to me - it started out as a major, sweeping counteroffensive before Moscow and ended up essentially as a really massive diversion from stalingrad+a killing field where both sides were supposed to get mashed up and the soviets then recover more quickly
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:zhukov was pretty tolerant of attrition warfare. he knew that the soviets had a manpower advantage over the germans, and those meatgrinders kept german formations in place and out of sorts for other things to happen I dunno, I had read that it was its own operation, but after it failed and Uranus succeeded, it was re-written as a diversionary operation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Doesn't really work as an argument against the image of Soviet army being a human wave generator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
sullat posted:I dunno, I had read that it was its own operation, but after it failed and Uranus succeeded, it was re-written as a diversionary operation. it was originally intended to break the germans and cause a number of minor encirclements, but ended up working as an attritional battle/strategic diversion, is how i've had it explained. zhukov kept pushing the attack after it became obvious that the initial objectives weren't going to work out very well, he likely had a good reason for that. remember also that the germans were at the end of a very long and very precarious supply line - regrouping took them much more time and effort than it did for the russians JcDent posted:Doesn't really work as an argument against the image of Soviet army being a human wave generator. how so? they weren't blindly charging for no good reason, the sub-operations were typically tactically sound &c, the strategic objectives just became unfeasible so they found new ones that could use a lot of the same planning and preparation
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
sullat posted:I dunno, I had read that it was its own operation, but after it failed and Uranus succeeded, it was re-written as a diversionary operation. You have to remember that Zhukov was involved in politics during three Soviet leaders, two of whom at some points felt threatened by his popularity and started smear campaigns on him. At times he was near completely erased from official histories, becoming an unperson.So he wrote his memoirs to defend his reputation and didn't want to give any ammo to those who were attacking him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
sullat posted:I dunno, I had read that it was its own operation, but after it failed and Uranus succeeded, it was re-written as a diversionary operation. Personally, I think Verdun was similar. Started out as an attempt to break-through, and then retroactively declared an attritional battle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You have to remember that Zhukov was involved in politics during three Soviet leaders, two of whom at some points felt threatened by his popularity and started smear campaigns on him. At times he was near completely erased from official histories, becoming an unperson.So he wrote his memoirs to defend his reputation and didn't want to give any ammo to those who were attacking him. Yeah, one of the fun parts of historical research is disentangling the post-war habit of re-writing history to make your decisions look better from what actually happened. E.G., Churchill, Procopius, Thucy, et al. A long and noble tradition. I guess ultimately it comes down to whose analysis is more convincing, the book I read (Ivan's War, I think, on the recommendation of this thread) tended to the opinion that this was a failed campaign retroactively declared an attritional campaign, but the only people that know for sure are dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Doesn't really work as an argument against the image of Soviet army being a human wave generator. If by human wave attacks we mean unsupported infantry attacks, then the Red Army did a shitload of those. But they weren't done on purpose, they happened when the officers and troops were poorly trained and lacked experience in multi combat arms operations. I don't now much about the training in the Red Army, did it differ much from other armies? Or was one of the reasons the Soviet tendency of raising new units instead of reinforcing older ones? sullat posted:Yeah, one of the fun parts of historical research is disentangling the post-war habit of re-writing history to make your decisions look better from what actually happened. E.G., Churchill, Procopius, Thucy, et al. A long and noble tradition. I guess ultimately it comes down to whose analysis is more convincing, the book I read (Ivan's War, I think, on the recommendation of this thread) tended to the opinion that this was a failed campaign retroactively declared an attritional campaign, but the only people that know for sure are dead. Yeah, history rewriting never goes out of style. The original puppet master defense, "I meant to lose all these armies!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:If by human wave attacks we mean unsupported infantry attacks, then the Red Army did a shitload of those. But they weren't done on purpose, they happened when the officers and troops were poorly trained and lacked experience in multi combat arms operations. I don't now much about the training in the Red Army, did it differ much from other armies? Or was one of the reasons the Soviet tendency of raising new units instead of reinforcing older ones? It happened all the time in the US Army. One of the big things I took from reading about the Battle of the Bulge was how the infantry were always in the worst spots they could be, and the tank destroyers were hardly ever where the infantry were. Conversely, when they were all in the right place, a few US tank destroyers supporting an infantry defence managed to hold back more than their own numbers in Volkgrenadiers and panzers. Not to mention throwing infantry unnecessarily into a meat-grinder was what the Hurtgen Forest was all about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Yeah that was a lousy call of duty map.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Endman posted:Not to mention throwing infantry unnecessarily into a meat-grinder was what the Hurtgen Forest was all about. "The Rur triangle was later cleared during Operation Blackcock between 14 and 26 January 1945." Interesting how both Hurtgen and Bulge caused more casualties for the Allies. Sure, the Germans couldn't afford whatever they lost, but that's hardly a consolation for the Allied casualties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:"The Rur triangle was later cleared during Operation Blackcock between 14 and 26 January 1945." How this applies to the Bulge I'm not sure, but Hurtgen was an offensive operation by the Allies and usually the side on the offence takes higher casualties. If I recall, in general a 2:1 advantage in numbers is recommended for success.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Personally, I think Verdun was similar. Started out as an attempt to break-through, and then retroactively declared an attritional battle. Ye gods, don't get me started on trying to work out what Verdun was supposed to be. More self-serving going on than the buffet at Mr Creosote's wedding. 100 Years Ago Today is a day of Good News/Bad News, so let's review it in that fashion. Good News: there's something to talk about that isn't a hopeless and ridiculous failure! Bad News: It's that the Bulgarians have just kicked down Serbia's back door! Good News: General Sarrail has finally arrived at Salonika! Bad News: They've only managed to land one-third of his total strength, and the British component of the force has been ordered to go nowhere and guard Salonika in case someone tries to steal it! Good News: The autumn offensive has finally ended on the Western Front! Bad News: That means I now get to talk about things like "casualties, staggering", and "achievements, questionable"! Good News: Bernard Adams continues painting a vivid portrait of billet life! Bad News: It also involves patronising the local French people! Good News: Herbert Sulzbach has got his end away in Noyon! Bad News: He's so overwhelmed by it his diary doesn't have any entries for the rest of the month!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Most of what I've read about Verdun agrees that it was a dangerously stupid idea to inflict as many casualties on the French as possible with a series of slight advances and feints masquerading as a grand offensive, then shell the city into oblivion when all the French reserves piled in. One of the problems in practice was the fact that the commander on the ground (who I think was the Crown Prince? maybe?) wanted to advance further and take ground while Falkenhayn wanted to stop and draw the enemy into the trap. But then the major source for that is Falkenhayn's actual memoirs, which could be full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Endman posted:Most of what I've read about Verdun agrees that it was a dangerously stupid idea to inflict as many casualties on the French as possible with a series of slight advances and feints masquerading as a grand offensive, then shell the city into oblivion when all the French reserves piled in. I know a little from that sixties BBC documentry on Verdun, and according to that, the idea was to attack in a place where the French would have no choice but to commit everything in defense, and thus bleed the enemy white that way. The major thing missing from this plan, I think, was a story how the Germans would do that without loosing comparable amounts of men. Was the idea to capture a enemy's strong point, and then hold it against counter-attack? But the Germans were already doing that... Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
The Falkenhayn narrative for Verdun involves quickly capturing at least some of the forts, and areas of high ground like the Mort Homme; then sitting in there, fortifying the poo poo out of them, and preventing the French from counter-attacking in enough force to dislodge them by shelling the poo poo out of French reinforcements and supplies as they came up the Voie Sacree. The French can't retreat, both for reasons of national pride and for the oft-overlooked strategic fact that Verdun is the hinge of the east of the Western Front (as Noyon is the hinge in the west), so must continue holding what they've got and trying to take back what they've lost. Eventually, the casualties get high enough to prompt the repeated collapse of the French government, until one arrives in power that will be willing to sue for peace. If this is an accurate record of his thought process, then it's not an entirely unreasonable line of reasoning; on the defensive the Germans have been inflicting heavy casualties at a ratio of two to one or better in most places, and in the middle of a grand months-long battle any French territorial gains will be limited to a hundred yards at a time and there will be no chance of a sudden Day 1 breakthrough. The French government has also just fallen (spoilers, Viviani will be unable to save himself by sacrificing minister of war Millerand and will eventually be replaced as Prime Minister by Aristide Briand) in response to the failure of the autumn offensive, so there's every chance that a succession of similar failures might also yield similar results. The reasoning is also heavily flawed in a number of important ways (like, for instance, how might the offensive be affected if the British and French launch a counter-attack on the Somme at the same time as the Russians finally un-gently caress themselves and launch their own coordinated offensive Eastern Front?), but it's a credible plan. If, of course, that was really what he was thinking; and just like Haig's later presentation of the purpose of the Battle of the Somme, it's wide open for charges of "well, you would say that now, wouldn't you?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
I found what is probably a more realistic picture of General Pappenheim, friend to you and me Still probably idealized a bit tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
IS this because the US Army tends not to fight people with Air support?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
How many casualties could an army usually take without breaking and routing? Some of these casualty numbers are simply staggering. I just finished Trin Tragula's book ( good read by the way) and over the course of '43 the BEF loses something like 3/4 their strength!HEY GAL posted:well, let's take some battles at random on wikipedia and see:
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Some units at Stalingrad took, what, 400% casualties?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
LLSix posted:These numbers are crazy high too. Even the winners are taking more than 15% losses. anyway, it's probably because the tactics have all the subtlety of a brick through your window. cav on left and right, infantry facing each other, erryone walk the gently caress forward. add field fortifications to taste and here's wallenstein:  it's hard to find decent pictures of some of these people, despite their fame. you get paintings by people who never saw them, or a copy of a copy of an engraving some dude did. i don't think there's a famous-general equivalent of that beautiful portrait of Richelieu HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
KildarX posted:IS this because the US Army tends not to fight people with Air support? And/or procurement issues. We had a discussion about the M163 Vulcan and the various failed attempts to replace it a few pages back. Post Cold War, though, you can see why the US army doesn't prioritise AA, for the reason you state. It's hard to envisage any scenario short of World War 3 (and even then only maybe) where the US isn't going to have dominance over the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:And/or procurement issues. We had a discussion about the M163 Vulcan and the various failed attempts to replace it a few pages back. Post Cold War, though, you can see why the US army doesn't prioritise AA, for the reason you state. It's hard to envisage any scenario short of World War 3 (and even then only maybe) where the US isn't going to have dominance over the air. Isn't that a bit short-sighted, though? Drones are going to proliferate in ever increasing numbers, and you can't exactly task F-22s to fly low level combat patrol looking for 500$ quadcopters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:It's hard to envisage any scenario short of World War 3 (and even then only maybe) where the US isn't going to have dominance over the air. Two Soviet Generals are having lunch in Paris. One asks the other 'Oh by the way, who won the air war?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Isn't that a bit short-sighted, though? Drones are going to proliferate in ever increasing numbers, and you can't exactly task F-22s to fly low level combat patrol looking for 500$ quadcopters. Duh, you use $800 drones to shoot down the $500 drones!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Isn't that a bit short-sighted, though? Drones are going to proliferate in ever increasing numbers, and you can't exactly task F-22s to fly low level combat patrol looking for 500$ quadcopters. You're not going to knock those little things down with Vulcans and similar either, though, that's more a job for smallarms; and larger plane-sized drones you can absolutely knock off with conventional fighters (or other drones).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the spanish/imperialists/etc at noerdlingen did all right tho Do they just... run their pikes at each other's faces? I cant wrap my head around the idea of willingly doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Do they just... run their pikes at each other's faces? I cant wrap my head around the idea of willingly doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You're not going to knock those little things down with Vulcans and similar either, though, that's more a job for smallarms; and larger plane-sized drones you can absolutely knock off with conventional fighters (or other drones).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I think they get to about a pikes length from each other, and try to stab each other while being shot at by musketeers: I might be wrong though, wait for HEY GAL to come out with the correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I think they get to about a pikes length from each other, and try to stab each other while being shot at by musketeers: I might be wrong though, wait for HEY GAL to come out with the correct answer. well, they all also carry swords. i mean what they're using in any given fight
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Reminds me of my favorite Cold War joke. This joke always confused me because I thought the point of AirLand Battle was for the air war to blunt massed armour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
How prevalent was Astrology around the 17th century? You've talked quite a bit about soldiers superstitions and rituals (understandably) but how was Astrology seen and used by people in the 17th century?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:38
|
|