|
HEY GAL posted:Trin, do you...um...ever read or do anything happy? are you feeling ok
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
They also gave us this cheery song about a man being executed by a firing squad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05j25PHA7l8 He didn't die, so maybe a happy story?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Someone mentions Messines and I run into a small company that's planning to do a Weird War I range. Don't know what's weirder: a Weird War I game or the fact that they're going for the basically unheard-of 18mm scale. Also, lol at their setting outline. TBH, Weird War I would be a lot more interesting than Yet Another Weird War II game, all of which look the same and feature nazi werewolves and zombies
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:That would be the detonation of the mines that began the Battle of Messines, which was in 1917. There's a couple of larger ones. The explosion of the Alum Chine for example. The ship carried +300t tnt. e: Unless we're talking about *planned* explosions heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Wasn't the Halifax Explosion the biggest? 2.9 kilotons of TNT and 2000 deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Ataxerxes posted:There were a great number of official photos taken during WW2 by photographers of the Finnish Army and some of them are hilarious. Text in the caption marks is the official comment on the photo. Please use Imgur when posting pics on SA.   Cool pics btw!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Ammo ship or ammunition factory is a good starting point to look for horrible explosions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions SS John Burke was caught on camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMs4IJQVRYM HMS Barham was caught on film too. Fertilizer factories are good candidates as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion quote:The plant began producing ammonium sulfate in 1911. Largest by a number of metrics is apparently the Halifax explosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion quote:Mont-Blanc's forward 90 mm gun, its barrel melted away, landed approximately 5.6 kilometres (3.5 mi) north of the explosion site near Albro Lake in Dartmouth, while the shank of her anchor, weighing half a ton, landed 3.2 kilometres (2.0 mi) south at Armdale. The coolest example is ofc from the Early Modern Era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburner They turned a whole ship into a sort of directional mine: quote:The innovative part of the project consisted in the Hoop employing a fuse consisting of a combined clockwork and flintlock mechanism provided by an Antwerp watchmaker, Bory; the Fortuyn used a delayed fuse mechanism. quote:The clockwork had been better adjusted than the slow match in the 'Fortune.' Scarcely had Alexander reached the entrance of Saint Mary's Fort, at the end of the bridge, when a horrible explosion was heard. The 'Hope' disappeared, together with the men who had boarded her, and the block-house, against which she had struck, with all its garrison, while a large portion of the bridge, with all the troops stationed upon it, had vanished into air. It was the work of a single instant. The Scheldt yawned to its lowest depth, and then cast its waters across the dykes, deep into the forts, and far over the land. The earth shook as with the throb of a volcano. A wild glare lighted up the scene for one moment, and was then succeeded by pitchy darkness. Houses were toppled down miles away, and not a living thing, even in remote places, could keep its feet. The air was filled with a rain of plough-shares, grave-stones, and marble balls, intermixed with the heads, limbs, and bodies, of what had been human beings. Slabs of granite, vomited by the flaming ship, were found afterwards at a league's distance, and buried deep in the earth. A thousand soldiers were destroyed in a second of time; many of them being torn to shreds, beyond even the semblance of humanity. Sorry about all the Wikipedia, I'm not actually a historian 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Setting aside Anglo-American protestant bias, I think part of his modern praise is that it's seen as just so wacky that Sweden was a major power, so he must have been doing something right, right? I know Sweden probably didn't qualify as a great power until after their 30yw gains (and thus after Gus Adolph), but was the relative Swedish success mostly just a result of getting involved a decade later after everybody had bloodied each other up good already? I guess I'm asking how much credit we should be giving to GAII? I've understood that Sweden's success in 30YW was based on:
This is very much Great Man theory, but without those two guys, Sweden would have been a feudal backwater for longer, and wouldn't have been as big threat to neighbouring countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:For your pleasure, with a little twist. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What is semi-mobile warfare? Was it hasty scrapes and roadside ditches like 1914? Did horse cavalry finally get to the green fields beyond? Yes, pretty much. It looked a lot more like WW2 warfare than like the rest of the war basically. Nobody really had the time to start digging mega trenches, which of course means that trench lines are easier to break. As a result the whole thing kind of perpetuates itself, and you start to see more of what it was like in 1914, where "trenches" are essentially shallow ditches in the ground, and where natural defences/towns become more important. Of course none of the weapons being used dropped in lethality, hence casualties sky-rocketed during this period as men couldn't build sufficient defences to protect against the by now extremely effective artillery. And cavalry definitely became more useful in 1918, albeit only in a super-specialised manner. The best analogy that I usually use is that they're sort of like paratroopers, but with horses instead of planes. Essentially they would follow behind the tanks, sweep through enemy gaps as they developed and then rock up somewhere a few miles further in land and hold out there until the rest of the army caught up. It was all still a bit hit-or-miss of course, but generally speaking they were reasonably effective in 1918.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I've understood that Sweden's success in 30YW was based on: One thing that I think is worth noting is that not all of the ideas which Made Sweden Great Again stemmed from G2A or Oxenstierna. It was very much a process that began during the reign of Charles IX, who didn't manage to complete his work on account of dying and facing a lot of resistance from the nobility who he had pissed off by executing a whole lot of leading nobles. Some parts of the process was more or less organic: the huge sum of money that had to be paid to Denmark so the Danes would hand back the port and fort of Älvsborg forced the Swedish crown to streamline taxation and in general make their administration more effective. This had the side effect of improving the census which allowed to state to conscript far more soldiers than would have been otherwise possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
So what are the top 5 milhist places to go in Paris and Berlin? In July I should be visiting these cities for a few days each and I'd like to look at more than just paintings and art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
The Deutsches Museum is pretty great. Not a TON of WW2 but the do have some and the museum in general is great. See Napoleons hat captured at Waterloo and a Flak 88 on the same day. The holocaust memorial is worth seeing. It's also spitting distance from the Brandenburg gate and the Reichstag. Edit: oh and just down the street from brandenburger tor is my favorite war memorial, the Soviet one. Tons of T34s and artillery all of them battle of Berlin relics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:So what are the top 5 milhist places to go in Paris and Berlin? In July I should be visiting these cities for a few days each and I'd like to look at more than just paintings and art. Les Invalides in Paris and the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
I've been reading a history of Hawaii, and there's a bit where a Scotsman arrives in Oahu in 1804- just 26 years after Cook first arrived at the Hawaiian Islands- and meets a local chieftain, who boasts about his three 6-pounder cannon and 40 swivel guns at his disposal. Artillery keeps popping up again and again in the history of 19th century Hawaii, it really looks like they took a shine to big fuckoff weapons. The Maori also adapted to European artillery pretty well, didn't they? iirc they basically reinvented the star fort at one point even. Then I got to thinking about eastern Native Americans like the Shawnee and Iroquois, and I couldn't think of an instance where an Indian people took to guns and cannon to the same degree as all these Polynesians I've been reading about. Am I forgetting any big examples of Native American artillery? Am I misreading something about Maori and Hawaiian post-contact warfare? Why does it seem like Polynesians took to European artillery moreso than Native Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Why does it seem like Polynesians took to European artillery moreso than Native Americans? if gunpowder had never been invented, we would have thought their forts sucked compared to european ones. but turns out they were just the thing. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20 I'm assuming we've all seen this.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
No. e: The comment section is a joy to read. my dad fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I've been reading a history of Hawaii, and there's a bit where a Scotsman arrives in Oahu in 1804- just 26 years after Cook first arrived at the Hawaiian Islands- and meets a local chieftain, who boasts about his three 6-pounder cannon and 40 swivel guns at his disposal. Artillery keeps popping up again and again in the history of 19th century Hawaii, it really looks like they took a shine to big fuckoff weapons. The Maori also adapted to European artillery pretty well, didn't they? iirc they basically reinvented the star fort at one point even. Probably because cannons are not exceptionally mobile and there's a difference between defending a series of islands in the ocean versus the entire North American continent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:10
|
|
my dad posted:No. I think it's sweet to see such hysterical lying coming from genuine participants and witnesses.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Probably because cannons are not exceptionally mobile and there's a difference between defending a series of islands in the ocean versus the entire North American continent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Probably because cannons are not exceptionally mobile and there's a difference between defending a series of islands in the ocean versus the entire North American continent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Probably because cannons are not exceptionally mobile and there's a difference between defending a series of islands in the ocean versus the entire North American continent. You're on to something but it isn't the size of the poo poo to b defensed. I doubt your average tribe claimed exclusive use of much more land than the big island for example Weren't Polynesians a lot more sedentary in their habitation? Hauling cannon along when yo move from one area to another every couple years is going to be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:no individual native american civilization covered the entire continent No poo poo. I bow to your genius. Native Americans relied on mobility and their lands were easy to surround or bypass. Their forces were small and widely dispersed. They had few permanent settlements and built no forts. Cannons had no value at all to them. Islands, on the other hand, are natural forts. There are only so many places to land and move inland. Cannons in set defensive positions are far more useful in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:No poo poo. I bow to your genius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoma_Pueblo and the inca and the aztecs built huge empires
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20 Holy poo poo, that was unreal. Just read about the raid she was talking about : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putten_raid I always think of atrocities being committed on the eastern front, Poland, Ukraine, places like that. Wiping out a whole village of people who are basically as close to German as you can get without being German kind of reminds one that generally Nazis were not pleasant to be around and speaking a kind of wilty German does not mean they won't do horrible things to your entire town. Cyrano4747 probably has some insight on this but fighting in a really awful war and then losing and having to acknowledge after that you basically fought and your friends died for pure evil has got to be a pretty wrenching experience. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:uh, i grew up next to this goddamn thing, the finest non-gunpowder fort i've seen except for Krak des Chevaliers The Indian Wars primarily took place in the Great Plains in the late 19th century, which is the relevant time period and location. I'm sure there are specific instances of both use of cannons and building of forts here and there, but the question was why they weren't generally adopted. By the time the Native Americans realized they were in a fight for their lives, it was too late to do much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Holy poo poo, that was unreal. Does anyone know about German Historiography of the Second World War? I've read Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust,Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland andSoldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying and there is still not much consensus. My understanding is that in the 60's the SS was blamed for almost everything and the crimes of the Wehrmacht and various other services were not acknowledged. How much has that changed in academic and pop-culture circles? From reading The Third Reich at War: 1939-1945 it seems that the Wehrmacht was committing crimes on all fronts almost from the moment of crossing the Polish frontier, and that the Einsatzgruppen, Feldgendarmerie, and Geheime Feldpolizei were operating openly in sectors under the control of Heer units.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:No poo poo. I bow to your genius. You're generalizing a shitload. Anyway, I think it's probably more a matter of availability? The Hawaiians would be purchasing off of boats which tend to have more and bigger guns, hence the relatively bigger number of gently caress off guns. You might also see a difference between policies regarding selling weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Does anyone know about German Historiography of the Second World War? There's a myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht' which is absolutely not true, but I've also heard that participating in outright atrocities was not compulsory and soldiers could refuse (much good it did the victims though). Some of the most awful stuff I've heard of, outside of actual industrial-scale killing of people, was done by foreign volunteers to their national SS Auxiliary. Cyrano4747 (who actually studies this professionally) will be by shortly to school us all, please remain seated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah that's a huge topic. I'll post something later when I'm not on a phone but don't let that stop other people from chiming in. The tl;dr is that the crimes of the Wehrmacht were played down until about the 70s when more and more scholarship started pointing out how they were ducking awful to. In academic circles today it's well established but any poo poo flies in pop culture so you get tons of clean Wehrmacht wheraboos on online forums etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:By the time the Native Americans realized they were in a fight for their lives, it was too late to do much. The Mohawks met the Dutch in the 1610s, and the Dutch certainly built forts with cannon aplenty that the Iroquois could easily observe. The Iroquois Confederacy had towns- not just temporary encampments, but towns- and fought amongst themselves and with pretty much everybody around them. Why didn't they embrace European artillery? What about the Cherokee, when they were still in the Appalachian foothills and seemed to be quite keen on adopting everything else European, from clothes to the printing press? I get why, say, the Comanche or Lakota didn't seem too keen on cannon, but there's plenty of places where it looks like it would've made sense for Native Americans to get their hands on some falconets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Could it be something as simple as the fact that when NE Native Americans were first in contact with Europeans, artillery was still basically thought of as witchcraft and was still not great, while by the time there was contact between Europe and Polynesia artillery was much better understood and reproducible? I'm basically hypothesizing that it was easier to learn to use artillery in the early 19th century, and that made it easier for people who were in contact later to adopt it. (Keep in mind that I'm pulling this out of the my rear end and my official title is Some Dude On the Internet.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:but I've also heard that participating in outright atrocities was not compulsory and soldiers could refuse (much good it did the victims though). Was this actually feasible/ commonplace or were you liable to get shunned by your fellow soldiers for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
early modern artillery owned, you shut your mouth getting gunpowder might have been difficult without access to european supply lines though--charcoal's ok, saltpeter's kinda ok if enough people are pissing in the dirt where you live, but how much sulphur is in the new world? can you mine it
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:early modern artillery owned, you shut your mouth During King Philip's War I think there was either something like one place that could make gunpowder in all of New England or the colonists were entirely dependent on shipments from England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:During King Philip's War I think there was either something like one place that could make gunpowder in all of New England or the colonists were entirely dependent on shipments from England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
It's an interesting question, because I'm pretty sure lots of Native Americans came to adopt the musket and the rifle. It could be European immigrants just weren't very keen on selling them cannons, or that they didn't fit in with the Native Americans' existing strategies and logistics so the people with the money went "nah we're good". But, y'know, this disclaimer applies to me as well: Xiahou Dun posted:(Keep in mind that I'm pulling this out of the my rear end and my official title is Some Dude On the Internet.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Was this actually feasible/ commonplace or were you liable to get shunned by your fellow soldiers for it? That's a really good question and something I was wondering about as well. I know I've heard that it was not compulsory but I can't remember where I've heard it from and I have no idea how the rest of the unit would have treated the guys who didn't raise their hands at "hey, we're gonna just murder the hell out of these families, who's in?" I imagine that if you survived the war, your life was a whole lot easier to live if you chose the 'no' option. On the other hand, there are plenty of people throughout history who chose 'yep' and slept like babies every night until they died in their beds at 90 years so who knows. Siivola posted:But, y'know, this disclaimer applies to me as well: Also this, if I'm posting about anything besides the US Navy ca. 2002 or Holocaust victim interviews please assume that it's just a haze of Dan Carlin, Mike Duncan, and this thread's predecessor. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
it may just have been that cannon were rare and expensive. the Spanish Empire chilling on fat stacks of gold in Peru yeah, but a few English scratching out a living in what is now the American east coast? how many guns would they have? they probably wouldn't want to sell any
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:16
|
|