|
You can have rules against asking questions about topics that have been discussed before, or you can have a conscious decision to not point people towards old effortposts in order to encourage future questions on the same topic. You really can't have both.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
The strong post what they wish and the weak read what they must.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Is it true that the average combat load hasn't changed over time? For the US Army right now, for an infantry guy, the basic load (that is, the load you're expected to carry over distance) is 120-130 lbs, or around 70% of body weight. I feel like the kits during the world wars and the ACW and so on were way, way lighter than that, certainly by pounds and probably by proportion also. Granted it is also a distinct possibility that the modern day US Army is an outlier and is also stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I just went through those memes about the middle ages that were posted on the 2nd-to-last page of the old thread and lol. Though I'm not sure what's funnier, that each of those is wrong in some way or that I've seen people in the threads repeating the bad info. How about you go ahead and tell us what's wrong?  Waci posted:You can have rules against asking questions about topics that have been discussed before, or you can have a conscious decision to not point people towards old effortposts in order to encourage future questions on the same topic. You really can't have both. Yeah, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That makes me wonder: Can anyone talk about how Lend-Lease was actually handled at an organizational level? Did the US government decide what to send based on what they decided they didn't need but could be useful for others? Could other states just send in a wish list like it was Christmas and Uncle Sam might bring a nice country its very own Sherman 76mm? Was there a shopping catalogue? Was there a system of value, so that you could get B-25s OR Shermans, OR a few B-25s and a handful of M3 Stuarts? Who decided what went where? It's a good question. Actually, another question about this, since you brought it up, is "was the poo poo sent to the Soviets actually lend-lease?" I know lend-lease to the UK was sent on a "here's the stuff; just pay us whenever" basis. E: P-Mack posted:The strong post what they wish and the weak read what they must. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
This might be too hard to answer but I'm curious about the weight of equipment infantry have had to carry throughout the ages. When I see modern soldiers they appear to be festooned with equipment, packs, bags, bandoliers, pouches... it looks overwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:00
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:This might be too hard to answer but I'm curious about the weight of equipment infantry have had to carry throughout the ages. When I see modern soldiers they appear to be festooned with equipment, packs, bags, bandoliers, pouches... it looks overwhelming. Well perhaps these images will give you at least help, these photos depict what the average English/British soldier had on them through the last couple of centuries: 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that last image looks like an entire military surplus store. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I like the board game/cards the Napoleonic era soldier has on him.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The strong post what they wish and the weak read what they must. “Those who want to post, let them fight, and those who do not want to post in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
i'm the baselard in 1645
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Is it true that the average combat load hasn't changed over time? For the US Army right now, for an infantry guy, the basic load (that is, the load you're expected to carry over distance) is 120-130 lbs, or around 70% of body weight. I feel like the kits during the world wars and the ACW and so on were way, way lighter than that, certainly by pounds and probably by proportion also. I'm comparing http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/combatload.htm to http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf and https://www2.kuow.org/specials/militaryweight.pdf I think the 'approach march load' is the right value to compare. Overall it seems like, okay, the load has increased a bit, but not by a ton. Especially if you compare average fitness levels between WWII and today (I expect the latter to be better?) (I do like that the 1944 soldier includes a looted pistol...) Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:yo, kemper boyd Was uroscopy still a thing back then? It might be possible to tentatively extract some fun data from a couple years' worth of some bigwig's recorded uroscopy data, if he had had that done and the results were recorded. What kinds of medical records are a thing in this time? I think it was you who posted those autopsy records of the guy who died from a jousting-related skull fracture a while back. Are there surviving doctor's notes of ongoing consultations? Surely some of these guys had personal physicians. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Loadout for Chancellorsville for the Union, source below: Musket Cap box - 60 rounds Cartridge box - 60 rounds Bayonet Personal sidearm / knife / etc Canteen Knapsack 8 day's rations Blanket Rubberized blanket Overcoat Change of clothes Shelter half About 75lbs all told including weapons, which for some reason the author neglects. Supposedly, the average Confederate infantry loadout was more like 14lbs not counting weapons, but that's more a product of necessity than anything else, I would think, as well as the fact that most Confederate armies lived off the land by design. https://books.google.com/books?id=k...lder%22&f=false I would say that 75lbs is a fairly standard max load for guys that are expected to walk. This was kind of a cool project: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11011316/Military-kit-through-the-ages-from-the-Battle-of-Hastings-to-Helmand.html You can see about the same poo poo until 1944, which is when guys are primarily delivered to the battlefield with conveyances other than legs. Of course, they're also using specialist loadouts (Airborne, Marine Commando, etc) for the more modern stuff, which is annoying and not directly comparable. Edit: Average weight for a 20 year old male in 1880 appears to be ~130lbs from a clothier's table, so by extrapolation assuming that weight is standard in 1860 the Union loadout at Chancellorsville was approximately 60% of body weight, quite a bit lower than the modern infantryman's ratio. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:“Those who want to post, let them fight, and those who do not want to post in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” Screeds posts like yours, shitposters trade their downs for, Effort posts like yours and like my mothers, God made crowns for
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm comparing That loadout is...really optimistic, especially if you're going to be gone for a few days or if you're carrying any specialized gear. That said I'm guessing the average joe today is quite a bit bigger than his 1860s or 1940s counterpart?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Well are taller and much better fed than the guys from a few centuries ago were thanks to modern convenience.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:As others have said, the total weight carried per soldier has generally been the same since ever as humans haven't changed much. Lighter body armor is kinda why it has been put into practice as it has to have a certain level of protection given for a certain amount of weight. Like in WW2 you possibly could have given dudes rifle-protective breastplates, but they would have weighed far too much and often not made much of a difference anyway due to getting shot in the extremities or the face. (See: Kelly Gang from 19th century Australia Wow, that's really interesting too. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:31
|
|
) That's before you get into the whole thing of artillery, mortars and etc.
...
|
I found a fascinating UK government internal document on the matter: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455089/20150820-FOI06779_The_Soldiers_Load.pdf Skimming, it seems to suggest that yeah, loads have increased, but this was despite efforts to reduce it. At least notionally the target equipment weight of an UK soldier is not changed, even as in practice numbers have crept up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well are taller and much better fed than the guys from a few centuries ago were thanks to modern convenience. All you need is your weapon and some emergency cheese under your hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Why did the US suffer less casualties from Iraq than Vietnam? Casualties include both dead and wounded, so in that sense I'd say because Iraq was a brief high-intensity conflict followed by a long low-intensity occupation. In other words, fewer people were shooting at us for a shorter period of time than during Vietnam, so fewer casualties. If you mean why did so few US troops die: If you're hit on the battlefield, and not killed outright, if you can make it to an aid station before you bleed out you stand a pretty good chance of surviving. Ratio of wounded:killed was 3:1 in WWII, 4:1 in Vietnam, and 6:1 in Iraq. To get people to an aid station before they bleed to death, you can either get them there faster, or slow down the bleeding. In Iraq, as compared to Vietnam, we had much more capability to do both; it's a lot easier to stop an attack and evacuate wounded when you have overwhelming local force and complete air supremacy. And Iraq saw the first use of bandages impregnated with clotting-stimulating compounds and tourniquets that can be applied and tightened with one hand. At least as important is training people how to use them. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13649/improving-the-odds-battlefield-medicine-in-iraq-and-afghanistan quote:The most important development in battlefield trauma care has been the creation of the set of doctrines and procedures that comprise Tactical Combat Casualty Care. First developed beginning in 1994 by the U.S. special operations forces community, the goal was to detect the most easily preventable causes of battlefield deaths and train first responders to quickly stabilize such injuries when under fire. This also meant deferring care for injuries that, while still potentially lethal if left untreated, were survivable in the short term. In 1997, TCCC became the standard doctrine for the Navy SEALs, and was mandated for the U.S. 75th Ranger Regiment in 1998 by the regiment’s commanding officer, then-Col. Stanley McChrystal. In 2011, TCCC became the standardized set of combat medical procedures used across the U.S. armed forces. And also, modern body armor is really damned effective. When you can take a full-length .30-caliber rifle cartridge to your chest at a range of 75 yards and still get up and run, there are a going to be a fair number of wounds that would have been otherwise fatal without armor. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well perhaps these images will give you at least help, these photos depict what the average English/British soldier had on them through the last couple of centuries: I think there's some pretty liberal interpretation with the housecarl and knight in as much as those weapons wouldn't all be carried by one guy. Indeed I don't think the housecarl would carry the spear or smaller axe at all, and I doubt they would carry both a sword and a seax. My only other real complaint is the armor for thee knight. The coat of plates he's supposed to be wearing (the leather thing) I understand to be more typical of 50 years later. This is ironic given that the great helm is of an early 13th century type. My only other complaint is that the man-at-arms from the "English civil war" has mail sleeves on his arming doublet but no voiders for the armpits by the look of it, which is odd. I like the personal items in those, generally. They're nice touches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I think there's some pretty liberal interpretation with the housecarl and knight in as much as those weapons wouldn't all be carried by one guy. Indeed I don't think the housecarl would carry the spear or smaller axe at all, and I doubt they would carry both a sword and a seax. My only other real complaint is the armor for thee knight. The coat of plates he's supposed to be wearing (the leather thing) I understand to be more typical of 50 years later. This is ironic given that the great helm is of an early 13th century type. Was it so unusual for a medieval soldier to wear equipment together that was wildly out of date? I mean a helmet is a helmet is a helmet, if you take good care of it it might last 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Was it so unusual for a medieval soldier to wear equipment together that was wildly out of date? I mean a helmet is a helmet is a helmet, if you take good care of it it might last 50 years. The point I was getting at is his equipment is implicitly top-of-the-line, given the coat of plates, but his helm is much older. It's not unusual as such, though you usually see things be updated and adapted (new grips, new hilt on an old blade etc) rather than used as-is. Also the only way a helm is going to last 50 years is if you never fight in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I think there's two answers to that. Firstly, a helmet isn't just a helmet, there was considerable development in protective equipment across the centuries until people finally decided "gently caress it this steel nonsense isn't working any more". The knight's helmet, for instance, is basically a steel bucket riveted from plates. The man-at-arms below has a sallet raised from a single sheet of metal, which is much more difficult, but also stronger. Second, dressing fashionably was as much a thing back then as it is now. These people generally had the money to spend, so I can't really see why they wouldn't buy the latest styles. Imagine combining the latest tacticlol plate carrier with one of those goofy steel helmets from East Germany.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That makes me wonder: Can anyone talk about how Lend-Lease was actually handled at an organizational level? Did the US government decide what to send based on what they decided they didn't need but could be useful for others? Could other states just send in a wish list like it was Christmas and Uncle Sam might bring a nice country its very own Sherman 76mm? Was there a shopping catalogue? Was there a system of value, so that you could get B-25s OR Shermans, OR a few B-25s and a handful of M3 Stuarts? Who decided what went where? The Soviets had "catalogues" to order from, plus occasionally military intelligence would report on a cool new thing the British/Americans had and they'd as for that too. Sometimes that thing didn't actually exist, but them's the breaks. With tanks, a handful of them would be ordered if the paper description was good enough, then they'd be run through trials. If the tank did well enough, more would be ordered. If there were problems with the tanks during trials, receiving, or use, those problems would trickle up to the military mission of the supplier and something would be done about it, usually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's a good question. Actually, another question about this, since you brought it up, is "was the poo poo sent to the Soviets actually lend-lease?" I know lend-lease to the UK was sent on a "here's the stuff; just pay us whenever" basis. Until some point in late 1941, it was "cash and carry". Show up with a boat full of gold, leave with a boat full of tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Okay, tried to photograph grandpa's scrapbook, but it got put away somewhere. In the mean time, have a souvenir he made for himself of his service.   (click for big) Looks like he just bought a model kit of a Balao in 1973 and modified it a bit and made a plaque, but still cool. Suspect Bucket fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also the only way a helm is going to last 50 years is if you never fight in it. this is actually an interesting thing because I've never actually seen a study on damage to plate armour (of which helmets are of course a type) over time. This would require care if set up as experimental archaeology because the higher slag content in medieval iron vs. modern steels would make them more liable to break if repeatedly deformed. The other thing to consider isç even if reworked by a smith a certain amount of weight is lost to oxidation. Not sure how many times it could be reworked even by a very competent hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:this is actually an interesting thing because I've never actually seen a study on damage to plate armour (of which helmets are of course a type) over time. This would require care if set up as experimental archaeology because the higher slag content in medieval iron vs. modern steels would make them more liable to break if repeatedly deformed. this will solve my problems and yours at the same time
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well perhaps these images will give you at least help, these photos depict what the average English/British soldier had on them through the last couple of centuries: Uh while the Wars of the Roses were a English civil war, normally when people say that they mean the one below it  Edit: also, 'Helmland province'? Where absolutely everyone has to dress like a knight, presumably. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if you buy it for me, i'll wear this armor While I would love nothing more than to beat you over the head for hours on end, I don't have that kind of money lying around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
feedmegin posted:Uh while the Wars of the Roses were a English civil war, normally when people say that they mean the one below it The latter more modern parts of that selection would certainly have had Scottish/Irish/Welshmen wearing them.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
apparently some of the people of the amazon were so dismayed by the early modern european practice of medical/instrumental cannibalism (which I posted about in the last thread), in the 1970s their descendants still called the author of this New Yorker article a pischtaco, someone who wants to steal the fat from human bodies.quote:One day, after hours on the river with no sign of human habitation, we rounded a bend and saw a dugout canoe, carrying a woman and a child, both with long black hair and naked torsos. At the sight of us, they began screaming and paddling frantically toward the riverbank, where a row of crude shelters sat on a bluff that was cleared of jungle. They shouted a word over and over: pishtaco. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/08/an-isolated-tribe-emerges-from-the-rain-forest
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Here is a video from a youtube dude who knows his poo poo and is not lindybeige, that is on the subject of weight loads for soldiers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FB0goDq38Q
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:Okay, tried to photograph grandpa's scrapbook, but it got put away somewhere. In the mean time, have a souvenir he made for himself of his service. That's an old Revell kit, the USS Lionfish. It is still available today. It's a extremely odd scale (Revell made its old ship models to a certain box size rather than standard scales) and scorned by fancy modellists because it's not modern in its detailing, but you can still get it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Imagine combining the latest tacticlol plate carrier with one of those goofy steel helmets from East Germany. Leave my TFR post history out of this please. Also loving laffo at the kit for the Agincourt archer including the loving sharpened log.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
(Warning, long first post, as the first entry in the book is the author describing the situation that led to the war using terms that, let's just say, would not be considered proper these days. Russia had cencorship laws during this time and while Alexander II was considered a lenient and a forward-thinking Tzar there might or might not have been an encouragement from the publisher to add some extra vehemence to the description of the enemy, regardless of the actual attitude of the author. Also, I intend to use the terms and the spellings of things a places and they were used by the author.) "DIARY Everyone still remembers the horrifying troubles and revolts, which caused the 1877-1878 war in the Balkan peninsula, when the small duchies of Herzegovina, Bosnia, Montenegro, Servia[spelled this way] and Bulgaria had risen in rebellion, to liberate themselves from the mindless opression and violence of the Turks. The Turks had beaten the servians[sic] and with fire and sword laid entire regions to waste in Bulgaria. Then Russia forced Turkey to accede to peace with Servia and convinced all European powers to common negotiations, to resolve how the repeated opressions and the revolts and bloodshed caused by them in Turkey could be prevented. The emissaries of the powers made together a suggestion for basic rules to be laid by Europe for Turkey, which, trusting the clear unreliability of England, vehemently denied. The whole thing would now have fallen to the wayside and the state of Christians be left unbettered for God nows how long. Other powers were satisfied by the sultans empty promises and would use no harsher means to force the issue. Emperor[the word used means emperor, not Tzar] Aleksander II of Russia did otherwise. - At the same time a part of the Russian army was put to fighting shape and sent to Bessarabia, at the Turkish border. His Majesty travelled to the army, held a review of the forces at Kischinev in 23 April 1877 and proclaimed to them that a war was being offered. "Reluctantly do I send you to war, spoke he; it is hard for me to shed your blood, which is dear to me, that is why I have delayed a war as long as possible, but now that the honor of Russia is in danger, I am certain that we will all defend it to the last man. God be with you!" The next day the armies of Russia crossed the border in three forces. At the end of August the whole guard of Russia, 35,000 chosen men, left St.Petersburg. The battalion of the Finnish guards received the welcome order to go to war alongside the Russian guards. " ---------------------------- It has begun. (The war inspired this marching song in Finland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F147FfEW9II about the guards battalion returning from the Balkans) Ataxerxes fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The strong post what they wish and the weak read what they must.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Ataxerxes posted:Servia(spelled this way) It was a pretty standard non-Serbian way to spell Serbia, you can see it being used as late as WW1. No need to add (sic) At least it's not "Ratzians" which was used by Germans and Hungarians to refer to Serbs (though that one was also used to describe the Šokci and the Bunjevci) and is now considered a slur.
my dad fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:30
|
|