|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Do you mean carries it into battle or just has one in his pack? I'm assuming it means carrying a lit candle in case anyone's slow match goes out
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Coming over from Grey Hunter's WITP LP, but largely to offer myself as a source on something completely unrelated. I work in First World War heritage, with a focus on the experiences of the 18,000 British Conscientious Objectors to conscription. Mainly just posting to bookmark the thread, but if there's anything anyone would like to know about Conscientious Objection, the Military system of dealing with it, or the system of Conscription itself in the first world war, please do ask away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Coming over from Grey Hunter's WITP LP, but largely to offer myself as a source on something completely unrelated. I work in First World War heritage, with a focus on the experiences of the 18,000 British Conscientious Objectors to conscription. Mainly just posting to bookmark the thread, but if there's anything anyone would like to know about Conscientious Objection, the Military system of dealing with it, or the system of Conscription itself in the first world war, please do ask away. Everything. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
If a surfaced WW1 submarine encountered a contemporary warship, wouldn't the warship have at a minimum been able to spot the sub much earlier than vice versa, simply because the mast offered a taller vantage point? WW1 subs didn't have any way to actually see the enemy beyond the human eyeball right? WW1 battleships even sometimes carried seaplanes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Coming over from Grey Hunter's WITP LP, but largely to offer myself as a source on something completely unrelated. I work in First World War heritage, with a focus on the experiences of the 18,000 British Conscientious Objectors to conscription. Mainly just posting to bookmark the thread, but if there's anything anyone would like to know about Conscientious Objection, the Military system of dealing with it, or the system of Conscription itself in the first world war, please do ask away. What were the primary reasons given by Conscientious Objectors? Was it all "I can not possibly bring myself to kill a human being" or were there people who knew just how terrible life was in the trenches and decided prison was preferable? Were there any people who objected just because they didn't like the idea of a draft as such? Were provisions made for people who refused to serve under arms, but were willing to sign up as medics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:What were the primary reasons given by Conscientious Objectors? Was it all "I can not possibly bring myself to kill a human being" or were there people who knew just how terrible life was in the trenches and decided prison was preferable? Were there any people who objected just because they didn't like the idea of a draft as such? Were provisions made for people who refused to serve under arms, but were willing to sign up as medics? Historically, religion. Quakers take 'thou shalt not kill' seriously, for example. And yes, there was a non-combatant corps in the British army in both world wars, though members would get a lot of poo poo from the other guys in the army (mostly doing manual labour not medical stuff though; the army only needs so many medics). Edit: sorry, didn't see that was directed at lenoon, who I'm sure can do a much more useful effortpost on the subject. 
feedmegin fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
I think stretcher bearer was more common than medic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Everything. Ok, well then. Let's go on a rambling adventure in civilian/military history. The organisation I work for is staunchly anti-war, so my usual spiel is a little more judgemental. However, the system is interesting enough and, frankly, bizarre enough, that it's interesting without any value judgements associated with it. I'll just do a bit today, as as much as I'm paid to talk about this, I'm probably not paid to talk about it here. edit: now with answers! Intro The first full, modern conscription in Britain was introduced with the Military Service Act of 1916 - but was a surprise to absolutely noone. Since well before the first world war, even throughout the Boer war, the hard core jingoists and militarists in Britain had been arguing for it's introduction, allowing Britain to project military force relatively equal to (in terms of sheer numbers) the continental conscript armies. Introduction of conscription had been resisted effectively until the dying days of 1915 - largely by the military. Still, given the nature of the mechanised war which was obvious to anyone with a brain by the end of 1914, conscription became a serious option for the first time. Though we're all well aware of the images from the early war of thousands of men in cheering crowds heading off to the recruitment stations, Asquith's government projections estimated that with a fairly constant casualty rate 1914-1915, and quickly dropping recruitment figures, by February 1916 permanent casualties would outstrip voluntary recruitment for the first time - "oh gently caress", in other words. Various voluntary schemes were tried, including the slightly bizarre but undoubtably effective Derby scheme, where men would volunteer their services at a date to be specified "if needed". Of course - they were all needed, eventually. Conscription ended up being a classic "thin end of the wedge" Act of Parliament. Asquith stood to introduce it as a bill on the 5th of January to "make good his word" that all single men would be called up before any married man who had pledged to join under the Derby Scheme was called. All judgements of Conscription aside, this was a convenient bit of political machination, that would win over wavering Liberals. Though the debate over conscription is viewed as one of the most passionate and interesting in British 20th century parliamentary history (and it's all available, for free via Hansard ) it was actually pretty short. Six sitting days encompassed about 100,000 words of discussion. Parliament was divided - the right-wing Tories and more than half of the ostensibly-centrist-for-edwardian-england Liberals on one side, the Labour party and other Liberals on the other. Wavering votes were bought off with concessions to the Bill - some Labour MPs won over with increased power for Trade Unions to have men removed from the system, the ever-rebellious Irish MPs (who never voted on bills anyway) reassured it wouldn't be introduced to Ireland, and many Liberals assuaged by exemption clauses - and the rest were either cowed or caught up in some really excellent and well-made debates for Conscription. In the end the bill passed overwhelmingly, and by the 27th of January, it was law. Every (single) man between 18-41was deemed to have signed up, and was consequently caught in a weird limbo between military and civil law. Mechanisms of Conscription The major block of resistance in parliament and around the country was the burgeoning anti-war movement, now mainly focused on obstructing and interfering with Conscription. The argument was fairly simple, "War Bad", but expressed itself in relation to Conscription in a number of ways. Liberals tended to focus on the rights of the state - the right to conscript, but most importantly, the right to change which laws applied to which men. Religious communities (especially Quakers in Parliament where a significant block of MPs shared the same platform) argued the state could not force a man to go against his beliefs, Trade Unionists saw it as a step towards industrial conscription (and ended up being correct about this), Socialists, Communists, Anarchists all saw it as a capitalist war not worth dying for. The usual anti-war positions, really. Nothing changes. The socialist, trade unionist and religious argument in parliament won concessions in the bill that would allow men to be exempted from conscription. Not to avoid conscription altogether, but to win an exemption after being conscripted. Legally a soldier first, any exemption would have to be proven. Crucial exemptions were won for men in war-critical industries, men with dependents and difficult domestic situations, the medically unfit and (and you'd better believe the house of lords with it's sitting bishops) ministers of religion. The contentious clause came in as exemption "F: On the grounds of a Conscientious Objection to military service". Depending on who you believed, this would either be a group filled with lazy slackers and cowards, or men determined to resist the state pushing them to go against their moral principles. Either way, even the most ardent anti-war, anti-conscription MPs believed there would be a few thousand of them, at most. A conservative estimate (and Asquith's estimate) assumed 4,000 men would apply for CO status around the country - and that most of them would be religious men. The concept was that they could either receive exemption or they would go into non-combatant roles in the army - medical work, sanitary and labour support, or war-critical industry. It was a bit of a bugger, then, when (more than) Two Million applied for exemption, and 20-18,000 of them were Conscientious Objectors. ArchangeI posted:What were the primary reasons given by Conscientious Objectors? Was it all "I can not possibly bring myself to kill a human being" or were there people who knew just how terrible life was in the trenches and decided prison was preferable? Were there any people who objected just because they didn't like the idea of a draft as such? Were provisions made for people who refused to serve under arms, but were willing to sign up as medics? Of 18,000, there were approximately: 8,000 Religious Conscientious Objectors - "thou shalt not kill" being the primary focus of their argument, though variations on this exist for the different religious communities - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Theosophist, Spiritualist etc 5,000 Political Conscientious Objectors - arguing a variety of points from "the state has no right to introduce this bill" to "i'd prefer to fight against capitalist bastards such as yourself, your honour" 2-3,000 "Ethnic" COs - usually German or other triple alliance countries, or Russian. Didn't want to fight against family, or felt unable to. In the Russian case, most of them were Jewish refugees, and fleeing a pogrom to have yourself conscripted to fight "for" the Tsar as one of his allies wasn't something they could do. The rest, sadly, are unknown - but those are the big three. "Not liking the draft as such" was a common argument - either that the conscription bill didn't work, or that it violated (as it did) the non-coersive nature of the British state apparatus. edit: It's worth noting that the argument was both "I cannot" and "I will not" - Morally incapable of committing an action that resulted in death, and Morally capable of resisting any pressure to do so. Medical services - tricky one! The common conception is that COs became stretcher bearers and were heroes, or were total coward bastards who sat in prison getting fat. Medical services provided a minority of COs with an "Alternative" military service. COs joined: The Friends Ambulance Unit - Quaker-specific (but took non-quakers), medical unit providing services behind the lines at home and abroad. Interestingly, not usually allowed to serve with British soldiers in case they infected them with anti-war thoughts, but served with French troops instead, the "Section Sanitaire Anglaise". Maximum strength at any one time of 2-3 thousand (estimated). Around 4,000 COs served with them during the war. The Royal Army Medical Corps - Many COs expressed a willingness to serve with the RAMC, but the relatively strict selection rules saw most of them turned away. The RAMC simply did not want to be swamped by COs, so, in the end, relatively few worked with them - only 1,000 or so. Many men in both of these groups joined up prior to 1916, as it was a voluntary activity where they could be guaranteed a "non-combatant promise". In the case of the RAMC, in the great manpower crisis of 1918, these promises would be revoked - sending RAMC men into prison for not fighting. feedmegin posted:Historically, religion. Quakers take 'thou shalt not kill' seriously, for example. And yes, there was a non-combatant corps in the British army in both world wars, though members would get a lot of poo poo from the other guys in the army (mostly doing manual labour not medical stuff though; the army only needs so many medics). Quaker stretcher bearers are "THE CO", the example that gets brought out because it's interesting, easy to understand and possibly the least controversial. A well-behaved and productive member of society refusing to kill (how deviant!), but agreeing to save lives is a more palatable story than the East London Russian-Jewish Anarchist telling a drill sergeant he'd "take his baton and The non-combatant corps is both incredibly interesting and not very well known - but it's intersection with the "Absolutist" objectors, the men who really did stick it out and refuse to serve, facing torture, prison and death, is known very well. lenoon fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:If a surfaced WW1 submarine encountered a contemporary warship, wouldn't the warship have at a minimum been able to spot the sub much earlier than vice versa, simply because the mast offered a taller vantage point? WW1 subs didn't have any way to actually see the enemy beyond the human eyeball right? WW1 battleships even sometimes carried seaplanes. WWI warships were, with a few British exceptions, coal powered. This meant they were visible from pretty far away due to the huge smoke plume they emitted, and one of the many reasons (the others chiefly being a more efficient energy source and much, much easier to transport and load) that navies wanted to switch away from coal as soon as practically possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:If a surfaced WW1 submarine encountered a contemporary warship, wouldn't the warship have at a minimum been able to spot the sub much earlier than vice versa, simply because the mast offered a taller vantage point? WW1 subs didn't have any way to actually see the enemy beyond the human eyeball right? WW1 battleships even sometimes carried seaplanes. You'd also be surprised at how difficult it is to spot something as small as a submarine's conning tower from miles away in an ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:You'd also be surprised at how difficult it is to spot something as small as a submarine's conning tower from miles away in an ocean. Doubly so at night which is when they preferred to make attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Entente once again displays its commitment to respecting the neutrality of small nations by landing men at Piraeus in Greece as a reminder of whose town this is. Ottoman Third Army headquarters still remains unaware of the large Russian boot swinging towards its arse, the German government continues tying itself in knots over what to do with submarines, Robert Palmer is getting unhappy, and Henri Desagneaux, arriving for his subaltern's course, is already learning the finer points of military sarcasm. Meanwhile, Flora Sandes brings the awesome in Albania, by acquiring for her company a massive case full of sugar and thereby further proving (if any proof were needed) that she was surely born to soldier. There's a PM heading for your inbox. edit: vvv The one thing that made me think twice before I made the decision to start doing this properly was the fear of literally turning into That Guy. I'm not That Guy, right? vvv Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Pacific thread strikes again with an Operation Sealion fanboy. He even wrote a book! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754889&pagenumber=22&perpage=40#post454984054
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Pacific thread strikes again with an Operation Sealion fanboy. He even wrote a book! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754889&pagenumber=22&perpage=40#post454984054 You hear this a surprising amount. I think it's a combination of Brits/Anglophiles who want to hold up the Battle of Britain as being the last stand that saved democracy combined with other Western Europeans who are still invested in the post-war myth of the invincible Wehrmacht because it makes the failures of their own forefathers less embarrassing. Throw in a pinch of your bog standard wehrmacht fetishism and you have people somehow thinking that the Germans had the capacity to land division-strength forces in England and, once there, that they had a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything but running out of ammo, gas, and food and surrendering to pitchfork-wielding Home Guards. edit: I don't feel like digging through another thread to hunt for idiocy, but does he ever show how the gently caress the logistics of Sealion were going to work out? I mean, this is a German army that was already at the far end of its logistics chain just from occupying France, and it's not like the captured French stores could be used on the spot. Food and gas, maybe, but poo poo like ammo and replacement equipment would be an issue. Plus they would have had zero time for a proper build up. Wasn't the entire first two and a half years of the US involvement in the war spent stockpiling supplies and concentrating land forces in England to make that poo poo work? Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
To be fair, surrendering to the Home Guard in 1940-41 would be a pretty sweet outcome for a German soldier in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You hear this a surprising amount. I think it's a combination of Brits/Anglophiles who want to hold up the Battle of Britain as being the last stand that saved democracy I'm not so sure about this one, really, at least among people in the modern day with any actual interest in the subject. I mean 'they would totally have beaten the crap out of us if they'd got over the Channel' is a bit less awesome than 'even without the air force we could beat them with one hand tied behind our backs'. In popular culture sure, but that's because no-one in 1940 knew all this/was able to run the numbers and so a lot of people did entirely rationally expect a competent invasion if the RAF had been beaten down. Edit: his Amazon book has one review which goes into some detail why it's crap - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9197754811/thehundredyearsw I wouldn't normally link to this guy's stuff but it's not like anyone ITT is going to actually buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I'm doing a little contract work for a local business setting up some corporate archives for them. They've got a mix of things related to the business along with a bunch of just old documents that they want properly cared for. One is a small book on the state capitol building for Virginia ca 1919 or so that has this wonderful rehabilitation of "Dixie" printed in the back of it: edit: Note that the Star Spangled Banner wasn't the official national anthem until the 30s. There was a hodgepodge of orders that it be used at flag ceremonies etc but it wasn't officially on the books until the 30s, which makes this even funnier. Note the dig at Grant in the second verse. Yankee Land - Our National Anthem By Smith D. Fry Air - Dixie (note: this means you sing it to that tune) Our Anthem tells of Lexington, The Revolutionary War brave Yankees won 'Twas a thrill from Bunker Hill Till the foemen hence were hurled. George Washington, in fearless manner On Cambridge raised the Star Spangled banner Now it gleams o'er the streams And the ramparts of the world. CHORUS Our battle flags are flying, hooray! hooray! O'er the ocean waves, Freedom to save, While Tyranny is dying Hooray hooray, the Stars and Stripes forever! Hooray, Hooray, our Yankee Land forever Our Yankee boys' daddies followed Grant and Lee While Sherman raised "war" on his march to the sea. Strie raged, battles waged In divided Yankee Land Then "Let us have peace" said Grant to Lee "United we are and ever shall be. Keep your sword." Praise the Lord For united Yankee Land CHORUS - Our Battle Flags, etc Spanish ships were shattered with each cannon's throb "After breakfast," said Dewey, "we'll finish this job" And he did - Dewey did With his fleet from Yankee Land At Santiago "sailor boys behind the great guns;" In Porto Rico soldier boys victories won Sailor boys, soldier boys, Conquered peace for Yankee Land. CHORUS - Our Battle Flags, etc Then Congress declared for the land of the brave "No nation on earth shall the Kaiser enslave; Make them free, free as we. All are free in Yankee Land." Then victory came both on land and sea To the boys whose daddies followed Grant and Lee Soldier boys, sailor boys, Over there for Yankee Land CHORUS - Our Battle Flags, etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:If a surfaced WW1 submarine encountered a contemporary warship, wouldn't the warship have at a minimum been able to spot the sub much earlier than vice versa, simply because the mast offered a taller vantage point? WW1 subs didn't have any way to actually see the enemy beyond the human eyeball right? WW1 battleships even sometimes carried seaplanes. To further answer this point: detecting surfaced submarines today is an incredibly difficult task and, to make it worse for the US, it is one that has seriously atrophied thanks mostly to the Cold War. Ironically enough we're relatively much better at detecting submerged nuclear subs than we are at detecting surfaced D/E subs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not so sure about this one, really, at least among people in the modern day with any actual interest in the subject. I mean 'they would totally have beaten the crap out of us if they'd got over the Channel' is a bit less awesome than 'even without the air force we could beat them with one hand tied behind our backs'. In popular culture sure, but that's because no-one in 1940 knew all this/was able to run the numbers and so a lot of people did entirely rationally expect a competent invasion if the RAF had been beaten down. There is a LOT invested by people in the Battle of Britain being the thing that saved the world from Hitler. It's a heroic narrative where a underdog fighting on the side of Right and Good stands up to the invincible evil and turns the tide. It is literally the first Star Wars movie, and if you're more biblical in leanings it is David and Goliath. Listen to any of the "Their Finest Hour" commemorative stuff and it is literally the knights in shining armor of the RAF protecting a defenseless England (and by extension the democratic west) from the nigh-invincible Fascist hordes of the Wehrmacht. If by "any actual interest in the subject" you mean mil hist nerds then sure, I guess. But in the common perception of it it runs really deep. I would also add that a LOT of consumer-grade military history appeals to a far more casual group than the sort of people who don't go to a comedy internet forum to talk about dickbutts but to discuss the relative merits of old tanks. Think middle aged guys who think Ambrose is the finest historian that the US has ever produced. edit: seriously, watch any History Channel special on The Battle of Britain. That's the narrative you see there. edit x2: well, unless they've fully moved on to Churchill's secret druidic shamens defeating the unholy alliance of ancient alien tech and the black magic of Himmler's occult priests. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There is a LOT invested by people in the Battle of Britain being the thing that saved the world from Hitler. I don't think even invested so much as has become part of the national spirit of Britain. It's our finest hour, our shining moment, and it's at this point more national myth than historical fact. It's when the few, the good middle class white boys of the empire, aided by their working class mechanics, stood up to be counted when jolly old tory St Churchill called, and knocked dastardly Jerry for six while copping off with the WAAFs and never, ever, ever stopping, or dying, or failing. It's the dog at the end of the runway, it's the hurried pint and a cigarette while you dash out of the mess to your waiting Spitfire. It's the university Boffins (before Universities became breeding grounds of dastardly left-wing academics!) turning their brains, universally, towards Radar, and the young women marrying pilots as the dogfight contrails soared overhead. It happened in the summer, and it never rained. It's glorious, it's immutable, it's the Golden Age of capital-B Britishness. The national myth doesn't include the Polish, or the Empire, or the French. It barely has Hurricanes (and it certainly doesn't have any of the turret fighters), it has no worry or failure, or death. The Luftwaffe are either comically evil or faceless villains. It's the most mythologised bit of history I've ever come across, and it's totally and utterly fascinating as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Pacific thread strikes again with an Operation Sealion fanboy. He even wrote a book! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754889&pagenumber=22&perpage=40#post454984054 Should we start PMing him to join this thread? With Kedocloak gone I'm worried I'm going to turn into the new locus of scorn, what with my Zeppelin obsession and my knowledge limited to the 20th century  PS> The Panther was a faceplant of a tank Cyrano4747 posted:You hear this a surprising amount. I think it's a combination of Brits/Anglophiles who want to hold up the Battle of Britain as being the last stand that saved democracy combined with other Western Europeans who are still invested in the post-war myth of the invincible Wehrmacht because it makes the failures of their own forefathers less embarrassing. Throw in a pinch of your bog standard wehrmacht fetishism and you have people somehow thinking that the Germans had the capacity to land division-strength forces in England and, once there, that they had a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything but running out of ammo, gas, and food and surrendering to pitchfork-wielding Home Guards. I'm not totally surprised - but still a little surprised. From what I understand, Sea Lion was never really taken seriously by the Germans. When France fell, Hitler was already feeling itchy for invading the east, and let the Navy and the air force convince him that they could neutralize Britain militarily, allowing the army to be sent eastward. Of course, co-operation between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe would be essential - and was utterly lacking. This inter-service bickering was at its peak when it came to Sea Lion, since all three services could get in on it. The Allies started out not very good at co-ordination between services, but eventually became very good at it; the Germans in contrast started off bad and remained bad. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I don't think even invested so much as has become part of the national spirit of Britain. It's our finest hour, our shining moment, and it's at this point more national myth than historical fact. It's when the few, the good middle class white boys of the empire, aided by their working class mechanics, stood up to be counted when jolly old tory St Churchill called, and knocked dastardly Jerry for six while copping off with the WAAFs and never, ever, ever stopping, or dying, or failing. It's the dog at the end of the runway, it's the hurried pint and a cigarette while you dash out of the mess to your waiting Spitfire. It's the university Boffins (before Universities became breeding grounds of dastardly left-wing academics!) turning their brains, universally, towards Radar, and the young women marrying pilots as the dogfight contrails soared overhead. It happened in the summer, and it never rained. It's glorious, it's immutable, it's the Golden Age of capital-B Britishness. I wrote one of my theses on the Battle and I don't think any of the works I used (or have read since) was anything like this. I suppose I don't consume much popular history (let alone British popular history) but this really isn't how it is portrayed academically by any source I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To further answer this point: detecting surfaced submarines today is an incredibly difficult task and, to make it worse for the US, it is one that has seriously atrophied thanks mostly to the Cold War. Ironically enough we're relatively much better at detecting submerged nuclear subs than we are at detecting surfaced D/E subs. Do submarines back then have any way to detect things over the horizon/BVR? I guess what I'm getting at is that the surface ship only needs to detect the sub before the sub detects it, and presumably regardless of whether it's WW1 or today, whatever instruments the submarine has, the surface ship would also have as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm not totally surprised - but still a little surprised. From what I understand, Sea Lion was never really taken seriously by the Germans. When France fell, Hitler was already feeling itchy for invading the east, and let the Navy and the air force convince him that they could neutralize Britain militarily, allowing the army to be sent eastward. Of course, co-operation between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe would be essential - and was utterly lacking. This inter-service bickering was at its peak when it came to Sea Lion, since all three services could get in on it. The Allies started out not very good at co-ordination between services, but eventually became very good at it; the Germans in Contrast started off bad and remained bad. Remember that after the war there was a LOT of mythologizing of the Wehrmacht in its early years. Not to say it wasn't a good, competent force but it had to be made superhuman for a lot of people not to feel really silly about their performance from '39-42. Doubly so if you were in political office and you had anything to do with the pre-war government in any form. "They were never going to land because of their hosed planning and logistics so we really had all the time in the world to either wait for American industry to come on line or just let the Russians decide matters" is a lot less stump-speach worthy than "our super advanced fighter planes and our valiant pilots saved the world from evil, oh by the way we should totally spend billions of pounds developing fighters and a strategic nuclear force to hold off the USSR."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-yer-father...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do submarines back then have any way to detect things over the horizon/BVR? I guess what I'm getting at is that the surface ship only needs to detect the sub before the sub detects it, and presumably regardless of whether it's WW1 or today, whatever instruments the submarine has, the surface ship would also have as well. Submarines REALLY HARD to see even while surfaced compared to even a small warship. It's small, close to the water, and gets lost in the chop of the sea really easily. Think the difference between spotting a small single engined aircraft at a couple thousand feet and a B-52. edit: to give you an idea, in WW2 one of the huge things that really hosed over the German subs was when surface radar got good enough to pick them up and common enough to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm not totally surprised - but still a little surprised. From what I understand, Sea Lion was never really taken seriously by the Germans. Hitler made it clear from pretty early on in the war (Directive 6, 7, 8) that he wanted to invade England, and number 16 was a clear directive to begin preparations to do so. It was...amusingly naive, but it was taken pretty seriously. The fact they never really got past the first "step" (destroy the RAF) kind of undercut the whole adventure, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I wrote one of my theses on the Battle and I don't think any of the works I used (or have read since) was anything like this. I suppose I don't consume much popular history (let alone British popular history) but this really isn't how it is portrayed academically by any source I'm aware of. I think we're kind of all loudly agreeing here at this point. People who've done any sort of actual research don't believe this stuff. J Random Bloke on the Street who's watched popular TV and that's about it, though, quite probably. (though it's come up often enough at this point that they might well be aware the Poles were involved, at least)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:(though it's come up often enough at this point that they might well be aware the Poles were involved, at least) Every Batman needs his Robin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I wrote one of my theses on the Battle and I don't think any of the works I used (or have read since) was anything like this. I suppose I don't consume much popular history (let alone British popular history) but this really isn't how it is portrayed academically by any source I'm aware of. Yeah, this is not the academic understanding of the Battle of Britain - it's a pretty crude caricature of the British public's understanding. And our politician's understanding of it as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Eh, the way this thread goes on rabid anti-Germanism at times, it makes all other nations look like drooling idiots with with both hand firmly lodged in their rear end because how could you to the loving stupid Nazis only stupid people are Nazis who never got anything right how did you even lose like lol fire rifle or something Also, I'm not British, but I always understood the Battle for Britian as this hard fought dramatic, edge-of-the-seat, everything-we-know-might-explode when British and Polish fighter pilots were strained to the limit, but narrowly beat back the Huns. could we get back to my musket era questions
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do submarines back then have any way to detect things over the horizon/BVR? I guess what I'm getting at is that the surface ship only needs to detect the sub before the sub detects it, and presumably regardless of whether it's WW1 or today, whatever instruments the submarine has, the surface ship would also have as well. No, and they don't really either nowadays either. The problem with detecting modern surfaced subs is that only the tower is above the water, and even on big subs that tower is pretty small relative to surface ships. Radars are limited by the horizon, so a difference of a couple of meters vertically can mean a difference of many kilometers horizontally when it comes to early detection. Additionally modern sub towers have some accidental (or not?) low observable characteristics which further complicates matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
In Finland, you get a lot of "we stopped the Soviet offensive in 1944 so our independence was saved", when it was less that and more FDR and Stalin agreeing that Finland should remain independent and Stalin being far more interested in making gains towards Berlin. So, similar to the Battle of Britain in a way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do submarines back then have any way to detect things over the horizon/BVR? I guess what I'm getting at is that the surface ship only needs to detect the sub before the sub detects it, and presumably regardless of whether it's WW1 or today, whatever instruments the submarine has, the surface ship would also have as well. If they had hydrophones, then yes. Sound travels really far in deep water, even if sound propagation wasn't fully understood then. A big rock-crusher steam engine and propellers on a merchant ship would be broadcasting sound for miles. A u-boat submerged running slow would be deafened by it. However, I haven't found any articles or anything about how well passive sonar was used by submarines in WWI; all my searches get lost in the noise of how it was developed for subhunters in WWI. e: I think it looks like I'm contradicting bewbies when we are probably in complete agreement, so: visual: submarines are small and don't make much smoke. Surface ships were huge and made towers of smoke. The sub will see you first and get in closer before you know it's there. radar: not a factor in WWI, but a submarine can detect a surface ship's radar emissions way before the surface ship gets radar returns from the submarine. My boat had radar reflectors for the bridge included as part of the rig-for-surface procedure, but I don't know if that was because our sail was actually hard to get a bounce from or because of excessive safety precautions. sonar: a submerged submarine running slow on batteries makes almost no noise and is the perfect platform for listening for surface ships on a roiling sea with pounding engines. You can hear loud surface contacts miles away. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The Poles were in the old Battle of Britain movie, so I assume the average old person knows about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-yer-father... Bunch'a monkeys on the ceiling, sir! Grab your egg(?) an' fours, and let's get the bacon delivered!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Eh, the way this thread goes on rabid anti-Germanism at times, it makes all other nations look like drooling idiots with with both hand firmly lodged in their rear end because We repeatedly talk about the things they got right, like their pre-war medium tanks, the StuG (StuG LyfE) and the Jerry can are very frequently brought up in this thread. This doesn't detract from the fact that the big cats were hilariously bad or that Sea Lion was completely impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Should we start PMing him to join this thread? With Kedocloak gone I'm worried I'm going to turn into the new locus of scorn, what with my Zeppelin obsession and my knowledge limited to the 20th century Zepplins are awesome, never stop posting. JcDent posted:Eh, the way this thread goes on rabid anti-Germanism at times, it makes all other nations look like drooling idiots with with both hand firmly lodged in their rear end because The big secret is that everyone hosed up and was terrible to varying degrees. The reason why the Allies won was because they had a greater ability to cover for their early fuckups, and tended to gently caress up less later in the war while the Germans gradually began loving more and more things up. The reason why this thread tends to focus on Germany is that many of their fuckups are often mischaracterized or ignored, while Allied fuckups were generally ignored because hey, they won, so their fuckups are less important. War: It's hosed Up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Eh, the way this thread goes on rabid anti-Germanism at times, it makes all other nations look like drooling idiots with with both hand firmly lodged in their rear end because I'll be the first to say that the early Wehrmacht was a highly competent army, but yes, the first years of WW2 are basically a litany of Allied generals and politicians (and frequently that best of all animals, the politician who thinks he is a general) inventing completely new and exciting ways to screw the pooch. It's worth noting that the countries that stuck it out against the Germans were the ones buffered from their failures by geography. France folded, but England had that nice ditch between it and the continent and Russia was just so loving big that they could retreat nearly forever. Even so Russia was a closer run thing than it had any business being, largely because of some grade-A fuckups in the summer of 1941.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Zepplins are awesome, never stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:22
|
|