|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You have a supremely unfortunate user name (at best) to be hanging out in this thread. And you made a post I've seen made over twenty times in this thread so why don't we piggybank some money to buy 28-year old Klaus a new username.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:And you made a post I've seen made over twenty times in this thread so why don't we piggybank some money to buy 28-year old Klaus a new username. Or just put another number in front of the 88. Wait, klaus your favorite number isn't 14 is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
The Swedish Army of Gustavus Adolphus (or how I learned to stop worrying and to love the surströmming) So, based on the stuff we covered in our re-enactment group this spring here is what I have understood about how the native units (meaning here units containing mostly Swedes or Finns) of Gustavus Adolphus were set up. The force that landed in present-day Germany in 1632 contained many mercenary formations, of which I won't write about here, since they fall outside the scope of our re-enactment. 1.) Cavalry Native cavalry was mustered based on a semi-arcane system of tax breaks in exchange of mounted service. The Kingdom of Sweden had a number of noble estates , which could muster horsemen, but the larger part of the Swedish horse came from what is called "ratsutila" in Finnish, meaning literally "rider(or trooper) holding" . If you could afford to keep an armed horseman on retainer, to be called up into the regional cavalry regiment on demand, you would get tax breaks or even complete freedom from taxation. The people owning such holdings were not nobility, but held a social status higher than your average farmer. The country had no serf system in place (not in Sweden or Finland, something like that existed in some of the Baltic territories ruled by Sweden) so even the very poor were, technically speaking, free (wo)men. You could effectively buy an increase in social status and an (at least partial) immunity from taxation if you could afford it, but there were court cases involving landowners being fined or otherwise punished for providing sub-standard horsemen, horses or arnaments for them. 2.) Infantry In the Finnish part of the realm at least there was the so-called "ruotu"(file, as in rank-and-file) system, where a number of houses (usually 10, these being the poor houses that could not afford to maintain a horseman) would have to provide one infantryman when called on to do so. A "lääni" (county or something similar) would provide a regiment of about 800 men, arrayed in 8 companies, with some regional variance. Savolax regiment (the fellows my group portrays) mustered that 800 men (at least officially) when called on by the King as the war approached. Five companies, 500 men (on paper) were sent to fight with the King and 3 companies were positioned on the eastern border. A "kotikapteeni" (home-captain, not a rank but a task, held, in 1632, by a leutenant) was left in the "lääni" itself with a handful of men to muster reinforcements when ordered to do so. Sweden had been (and would be, after the times of Gustavus Adolphus) in a constant state of on-off war on its eastern border and raids from eastern Karelia were a threat. All sorts of nasty guerrilla stuff was also going on, but I'm not really very well versed in that. Service in the native units was effectively for life, or until severe injury. Especially distinguished soldiers might be released from service, but these were few. If there was no war the men might be de-mobilized in their home areas but could, and would, be called on when needed. In more peaceful times the native infantry was, to my understanding, used in garrisoning, being considered more reliable, if not necessarily as capable as mercenaries. There was a degree of social pressure on the poorer, non-married men to go and serve, and their families might enjoy some support from the houses that were spared sending people to war. These people did not usually volunteer, but, since someone would have to go in any case, mostly were not very likely to easily desert, as that might have repercussions back home. The soldier-to-be would be, theoretically, provided a main weapon (pike or musket), clothing, armor and a helmet (the last two for the pikemen)by the crown. This was not, initially, anywhere near always the case, with there being a particular lack of armor early on. The draftee was supposed to have been provided "sword money" by his village, and have used this to buy themselves a sword, but often there was either no money or swords to be had, or the money went down the soldiers throat. Savolax was not a wealthy place at the time and the infantry from there were noted for having all sorts of randomness for sidearms, including swords, axes, long knives (a smaller, "puukko" knife was carried by most people, as a tool and eating utensil, not a weapon for war), spades and whatever could be had. When the Savolax regiment was mustered its men were gathered into ships outside the harbor of Turku, to wait for a favourable wind for sailing to Germany and also to keep them from getting drunk or into fights with the townspeople. They were given cloth (white-ish or black-ish wool "sarka", mostly) and told to make themselves a doublet and a pair of pants. They took part in some fighting in Germany, especially in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rain where Tilly was killed and Breitenfeld. According to our sources by the time of Lützen there were about 100-200 men of the Savolax regiment still remaining with the field army, forming a part of the Swedish brigade. In about 2 years they would have lost about 300 to 400 men from their initial paper strenght to various stuff, part of the "losses" possible serving in garrisons all over the place. The mustering system kept changing during the life of Gustavust Adolphus and his successors, but the things described above would possibly have been what took place when Sweden decided to take part in the 30W and started mobilizing its army. Edit: And also initially the Swedish leadership was hesitant to use the native regiments (horse or foot) in important roles, considering them to be less skilled than the mercenaries (including many Scots, several Scottish noble reaching high rank in the Swedish Army), unlike what earlier, nationalistically motivated scholarship might suggest. The native infantry had taken a pasting in Poland some 10 years earlier and the generals were not that certain of its ability to withstand continental professionals. Ataxerxes fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
Siivola posted:Oh right, happy Let's Go Shoot Some Redcoats Day, all y'all! Um. Happy depressed Cornwallis or French Fleet Victory day too? TheLovablePlutonis posted:And you made a post I've seen made over twenty times in this thread so why don't we piggybank some money to buy 28-year old Klaus a new username. We should have done this years ago for the dude.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Then he began to hate America and wish he had never helped the US in the first place. That seems unlikely given what I know about his life, although I'm not quite sure its false. I mean he hosted prominent Americans at his own home for years prior the the French revolution, and closely consulted Thomas Jefferson while writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man. He also twice toured the USA , in 1784 and 1824, and continued corresponded with American leaders for decades. Also the US government paid his and his families bills while he was imprisoned in Austria in the 1790s, even orchestrating escape attempts and helping his son Georges Washington flee to Connecticut from France. Oh did I mention he named his son Georges Washington? Seems relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Happy Fall of Vicksburg Day/Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg Day everyone! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Question that popped up when reading about French involvement in the Thirty Years War. How do people declare war in this time period? What are the formalities, and what are the justifications, and what is the decision-making process? Like, do you deliver a letter, or do you just march in an army and figure they get the message? Like I know both France and Spain being Catholic wasn't a huge factor, but like, how does Richelieu decide to go to war, what does he say about it, and did he write anything down? And was funding Protestant forces as simple as sending someone over with a giant bag of cash, or was there something more formal? I know the mercenaries would switch sides, so they didn't really care why they were fighting, just that they made bank doing it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Happy Fall of Vicksburg Day/Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg Day everyone! I was at Gettysburg on the 2nd w/ a buddy who's a descendant of Lt. Alonzo Cushing. Standing in the Angle where Cushing's battery was stationed and looking west down the sloping ground to the line of trees where Pickett's charge began was pretty amazing. Cushing is buried at Arlington, right next to Gen. Buford  Somewhat related request: I'd love to hear more about Buford's use of dismounted cavalry. I seem to remember from prior dragoonchat that dragoons usually didn't fare so well against regular forces, but on a few occasions Buford was able to hold off numerically superior infantry with his troopers. How come? Lastly: did you know that Newt Gingrich wrote an alt-hist series about a Confederate victory at Gettysburg? He did!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
count_von_count posted:I was at Gettysburg on the 2nd w/ a buddy who's a descendant of Lt. Alonzo Cushing. Standing in the Angle where Cushing's battery was stationed and looking west down the sloping ground to the line of trees where Pickett's charge began was pretty amazing. Cushing is buried at Arlington, right next to Gen. Buford At Gettysburg at least Buford's cavalry were armed with breech loading carbines and were deployed behind wooden/stone fences - ie. the best possible scenario to be fending off infantry marching uphill at you. There's nothing inherently bad at being a dragoon in a firefight, it's just that there tends to be far fewer of you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Happy Fall of Vicksburg Day/Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg Day everyone! George Meade has a Posse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:George Meade has a Posse. Yeah he calls them the lighthouse crew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Re: the bomber command vs coastal command chat from s few pages ago. You also have to factor in the impact of all the resources and manpower spent on trying to protect cities. The AAA alone was an army's worth of men and industrial production I don't really have a dog in that fight but it seems like the analysis is simplistic when the only contribution from the city bombing is listed as killing a few women and children and blowing up a few homes. poo poo just the language tips it as post war hand wringing by a member of an establishment that had become VERY uncomfortable with the urban bombing campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:At Gettysburg at least Buford's cavalry were armed with breech loading carbines and were deployed behind wooden/stone fences - ie. the best possible scenario to be fending off infantry marching uphill at you. In the weird period where pikes and bayonets were used together, British Dragoons were fairly competent at fighting dismounted, but they were using borrowed infantry equipment. Bayonets and all. They were being used as scouts though and we're rarely far from reinforcements, but I don't remember much about individual engagements in the boom I read about the Nine Years War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Does anyone know when German AA production really kicked off in WW2? Was there much Luftwaffe materiel/hours spent defending against the early RAF bombing efforts, say pre-1941? I don't think anyone contends that the late war bombing had serious effects on Germany's ability to fight the war, even if it is just in terms of rerouting stuff to defend the cities and killing thousands of civilians, But the early years of the war? Were they really channelling loads into defence when their intelligence would have had a pretty good indicator of RAF accuracy, way before the Butt report was even compiled? There's no way that I can see that British bomber tactics pre Butt report were strategically worth the time, lives and effort it took. They had an utterly marginal impact on German industrial capability and even less on any direct military capability. Saying so has Bugger all to do with the terror bombing that followed it, and everything to do with that staggeringly low accuracy rate the Butt report predicts for a Ruhr target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The AAA alone was an army's worth of men and industrial production Air defense is where you place anyone too old, young, dumb or unfit (or having a vagina, in some cases) to serve even in field artillery, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Air defense is where you place anyone too old, young, dumb or unfit (or having a vagina, in some cases) to serve even in field artillery, though. Um not really. All those groups formed auxiliaries but the main bulk was still military aged males.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Does anyone know when German AA production really kicked off in WW2? Was there much Luftwaffe materiel/hours spent defending against the early RAF bombing efforts, say pre-1941? Fast googling shows 2.5k flak 88 made before the war, 1k in 1940, 2k in 42, and then it jumps to 3k 5.5k and 7k in the next 3 years. So yes they cared about air defense early on. No the AAA isn't as thick in the summer of 41 as it is in the winter of 44 but they still have about 5.5k guns to crew. That's just 88s. By 41 you also have about 800 10.5cm guns plus God knows how many smaller caliber guns. Even as late as 45 the flak towers had 20 and 30 mm to keep low level airspace threatening
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Fast googling shows 2.5k flak 88 made before the war, 1k in 1940, 2k in 42, and then it jumps to 3k 5.5k and 7k in the next 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
lol assuming that ww2 nazi manpower allocation was rational or efficient in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:related conflicts wasn't that in the 3 musketeers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
lenoon posted:There's no way that I can see that British bomber tactics pre Butt report were strategically worth the time, lives and effort it took. They had an utterly marginal impact on German industrial capability and even less on any direct military capability. Saying so has Bugger all to do with the terror bombing that followed it, and everything to do with that staggeringly low accuracy rate the Butt report predicts for a Ruhr target. People have said in this thread numerous times that Nazi Germany didn't go into a full war footing until incredibly late, because they were worried about discontent at home. So how would "so these bombers that are flying over your heads every night, bombing your homes and places of work- don't worry about them, our analysts say they're strategically insignificant, so we've decided it's not worth the effort to fight them" have gone over? Especially in the early war where Germany proper was otherwise untouched by the allies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Wouldn't the tying up of fighter aircraft and pilots to combat the bombers be a bigger deal? I don't think they lost any major battles against the Red Army because of a lack of AA guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Koramei posted:People have said in this thread numerous times that Nazi Germany didn't go into a full war footing until incredibly late, because they were worried about discontent at home. So how would "so these bombers that are flying over your heads every night, bombing your homes and places of work- don't worry about them, our analysts say they're strategically insignificant, so we've decided it's not worth the effort to fight them" have gone over? Especially in the early war where Germany proper was otherwise untouched by the allies. I think the thing with the 1939-41 RAF bombings were that they might well have been brushed off with exactly that - it really would have been "that single bomber flying over your house and dropping it's bombs in the field over the hill". I don't know how much of a response Germany had to the early long range campaigns, but (and I'm presuming here) their records of the attacks must have pointed towards their lack of efficiency. The Butt report (transcription) is really that astonishing, give it a read!. It's far too easy to forget the incredible difficulty the pre bomber-stream RAF had in even getting to within a couple of miles of the targets. Wikipedia gives a dead link to post-war reports drawn up by the Germans, so I can't check the accuracy, but it says "49℅ of RAF Bomber Command's bombs dropped between May 1940 and May 1941 fell in open country", and once combined with mechanical failure and >5 mile inaccuracy the % of bombs falling on any target, let alone the mission target is vanishingly small. I feel like every 20 pages or so someone brings up RAF early war bombing as efficient or useful on some new metric, "oh but it did this!", "oh but actually it did x, y, z, caused redirected a, b, c". If it did anything it was the propaganda boost for Britain at home and abroad, and the opposite effect for Germany. I don't know whether it caused a significant shift in allocated resources - though I guess presuming that it didn't is expecting the Nazis to be able to string together these concepts of "effect" and "efficient response", when 1933-45 shows that that was far, far beyond them. I'm sure Germany did respond, but the response was (probably? possibly?) proportionate to the intelligence on the threat of allied bombing, which did virtually bugger all. Sure did hit the channel ports though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I'm sure Germany did respond, but the response was (probably? possibly?) proportionate to the intelligence on the threat of allied bombing, which did virtually bugger all. Sure did hit the channel ports though. The Nazis did respond immediately - when the British Started bombing, Luftwaffe Gen. Kammhuber was put in charge of night defenses. While defending airspace (especially with a network of ground radar) was a very new thing, it was not long before German Night defenses were proportionate to the early threat. Kammhuber also started doing intruder missions with Ju 88s against british bombers at their most vulnerable - when they were landing after a mission. The losses from the intruders were so great that the British were thinking of packing in the entire night-bomber idea, until Hitler stepped in and ordered Kammhuber to stop doing these raids, because the German people needed to see the enemy bombers shot down. As for the long term threat of Allied Strategic bombing, staff officers of the Luftwaffe were concerned about it even at the start of the war. The German intelligence apparatus got very good estimates of Allied bomber production - and these were ignored by the Nazis because it was all negative an' poo poo. From 1942 to 1944 bomber defense went from just another war issue to MAXIMUM STRENGTH PANIC when Allied daytime fighters decimated the Luftwaffe defenders. But of course, by then it was way too late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Does anyone know when German AA production really kicked off in WW2? Was there much Luftwaffe materiel/hours spent defending against the early RAF bombing efforts, say pre-1941? Regardless of how effective it was it was still necessary for the same reason that efforts like Dieppe were neccesary, during that period of time the RAF were learning how to bomb effectively, it took them 3 years or so from the start of the war to actually having a meaningful impact but during that 3 years they were gaining the expertise to do it right eventually, working out the neccesary tactics, technology and training, they transitioned from what they couldn't do once they worked out they couldn't do it, hitting precision targets in daytime, to what they could do which was area targets at night, the USAAF had to go through the same adjustment when they arrived but they did it rather more quickly for a number of reasons. Every part of ww2 had that kind of learning experience in it, and in all of them a lot of men and material got killed and destroyed but it was neccesary in order to eventually get it right. E: I just had a flick through a couple books on the subject, and its interesting to note that before 1942 the RAF couldnt really mount effective bombing raids at all, when Harris took over in 1942 he noted the strength of bomber command in his memoirs, he had about 200 Wellingtons and 30 Lancasters, with 170 of various obselete or troublesome types, stirlings hampdens etc. But during that time they laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the technical basis of the RAF bombing campaign, which was their radar navigational systems. It was really only when Harris took over that Bomber command started having large scale effect. I would guess that AA production was a small consideration early on, in 1940 and 41 the german economy was having a fit through the excessive demobilisation and remobilisation to go from the battle of france into preparations for barbarossa, they cut production during this time significantly to attempt to export more to protect their economy from collapsing and keep their trading partners happy, but it was the time that they started breaking ground on new factories that would come online in late 42 and 43 which constituted a huge part of the eventual armaments miracle. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:until Hitler stepped in and ordered Kammhuber to stop doing these raids, because the German people needed to see the enemy bombers shot down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Wouldn't the tying up of fighter aircraft and pilots to combat the bombers be a bigger deal? I don't think they lost any major battles against the Red Army because of a lack of AA guns. Note that an 88mm that is an AA gun is an 88mm that is not an AT gun (or in a tank)...
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Note that an 88mm that is an AA gun is an 88mm that is not an AT gun (or in a tank)... A stationary AA regiment stationed close to your industrial centres is far cheaper to upkeep than a mobile AA, AT or tank regiment of similar caliber and size serving near front. Likewise a bomber looking for submarines in the Atlantic is unlikely to get shot down by German FlaK or night fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Are there any reports of Subs successfully shooting down aircraft in WW2?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Are there any reports of Subs successfully shooting down aircraft in WW2? Wiki says that quote:U-Boats were not defenseless, since their deck guns were a very good anti-aircraft weapon. They claimed 212 Allied aircraft shot down for the loss of 168 U-boats to air attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
That seems like a lot!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Are there any reports of Subs successfully shooting down aircraft in WW2? Yes, quite a few: http://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm A good chunk of those are "this aircraft was lost over the sea on this date + this U-boat was operating in that area at the time" but even the verified accounts make for quite an impressive list. Including the one that shot down a USN K-Class blimp. There are 20-odd Sunderlands on that list too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Are there any reports of Subs successfully shooting down aircraft in WW2? At least the first try of the FlaK trap tactic shot down a Sunderland, but the boat was also badly damaged by the bombs from the plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the nazis weren't even any good at being nazis Honestly there is so much truth to this Like I think the only reason we have this vision of the Nazis being efficient is because Spock described them as "the most efficient civilization in human history" on the original Star Trek
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Are there any modern submarines with anti aircraft armaments?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Are there any modern submarines with anti aircraft armaments? Techically, a sub launched missile could collide with an aircraft? Otherwise maybe some heavy machinegun to bring on to deck against a troublesome helicopter, but modern subs don't really surface if they can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Are there any modern submarines with anti aircraft armaments? Maybe some nations' boats carry MANPADS or something, but no, if you're spotted by air, you're already hosed. Shoot the aircraft, and now you've left flaming datum, so you're as hosed as you were before. There might be some kind of crazy sub-launched killer drone or something, but I'd lay money that in the last sixty years or so of submarining, the way to stay safe is to stay deep and quiet. e: And I mean might carry MANPADS like "we have 3 machine guns, 10 rifles, and 25 pistols in the weapons locker, plus two anti-air missiles", not like they're something they plan on ever using. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
I would think that a sub can launch some kind of SAM if there was some way to accurately locate the aircraft and then guide the missile to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Note that an 88mm that is an AA gun is an 88mm that is not an AT gun (or in a tank)...
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I would think that a sub can launch some kind of SAM if there was some way to accurately locate the aircraft and then guide the missile to it. It could, but why risk it? Ten more aircraft could be out there, and they move a lot quicker than submarines do. It makes sense if you think of it as a submarine vs. helo duel, but if there's an aircraft looking for you, it will of course report a missile launch and whether or not you destroy it, now everyone knows exactly where you were and when you were there. ASW aircraft are unfortunately very connected to other assets. If you give them a twitch of your location, better to leave it a question mark than a burning debris field. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:49
|
|