|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago "Trin Tragula" url=https://makersley.com/pozieres-windmill-29-jun-1916/ posted:Apparently they managed to kill an Austro-Hungarian officer; I never knew they went as advisers to the Ottoman army in the same way that the Germans did. This comes to mind.. 
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:They also found that almost all infantry engagements happen at ranges of 300m or less, which means SMGs are a little too weak but battle rifles are too strong. The intermediate weapon is a logical solution to modern combat. Why that distance? I'm suspecting it could be described as a mathematical formula of some sort that could describe it involving distance, speed of a human being with a combat load, and the average hight of a man. And there's another one for fighting in mountains or cities. And I also suspect it works out to be the same distance that's perfect for throwing Roman Javelins or the exact range of half a Mongolian bow can fire because someone took the time to work this stuff out 2000 years ago already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Around 30m?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
It's probably a mix of different factors like geography etc, but personally I suspect the limits of human perception is important. At 300m, a 2m tall standing man is basically a quarter of the length of your thumbnail when held at arms' length. (Back of the envelope calculations here...) A man in cover, or prone will be even harder to spot. It's going to be really, really hard to spot targets smaller than that if you don't know where they are coming from, and aren't in an ideal situation where they are silhouetted against the right sort of background. And trying to shoot at this sort of target without telescopic optics and some kind of bipod/tripod will be difficult, so even if you spot them first, it's smarter to wait till they get closer before engaging.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
So, this stuff. Green glass, a lot of the time with merengue-like blobs on the sides. http://www.armabohemia.cz/Novestr/glassA.htm it's everywhere in early modern art! even in the humblest settings, as in this Franck engraving:  why? could these people afford something like this? last weekend an english reenactor told me that yes they could--he had just read an article saying that according to ship manifests, central european green glass was so cheap that they shoveled it into english ships as ballast. they'd shovel it back out at the end of the voyage and sell any of it that didn't break for a few cents a piece, at a profit. the soldier in that picture could have afforded the glass he's holding, and probably more than one of them. so i could have a glass just like the one in that engraving, like this  but it'd break within minutes so i won't. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why that distance? I'm suspecting it could be described as a mathematical formula of some sort that could describe it involving distance, speed of a human being with a combat load, and the average hight of a man. And there's another one for fighting in mountains or cities. It's quite hard to shoot accurately without optics at anything greater than that range in non-optimal conditions, there's an effective lower limit to the human eyeball and how steady your hands are that can't really be gotten around without somewhere to rest your gun and a magnifying optic. More than 300m away you need pretty good shooting conditions to be able to hit anything reliably, and of course the people you're shooting at aren't going to sit there and let you keep doing it, so they will either bugger off or try to close range with you so that they can shoot you properly. Guns from even the first world war were perfectly capable of accurate shooting at ranges exceeding the effective limits of human stability and perception, so for the past hundred years or so the main limiting factor has not been the gun, but the user. This is the general conceit of all post-ww1 warfare, and frankly quite a lot of ww1 warfare if you consider that people didn't get very far by sitting in opposing trenches and taking potshots at each other. The object is to get right up in the enemy's grill and gently caress them up from a position that at least negates their positional advantage and ideally, gives you a positional advantage. So fights tend towards happening at pretty close range as one or both sides tries to get closer to, and outmaneuver the other, especially in cities and hedgerows and jungles such as were major features of the second world war. It differs for combat on open plains and in mountains of course but we haven't generally fought in those very much for most of the 20th century, so most of our military doctrine was based around the second world war and then things like Vietnam, and even now is heavily based on the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why you have soldiers trucking around in MRAPs and carrying short carbine rifles. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
re: radios, it's again a broad question but here's a broad answer. Americans had lots of radios, everyone else not so much. In later stages of WW2 you could expect handie talkies to be found at platoon level all over the US organization. The range of it wasn't great, but sufficient for below company communicating. They also had more portable wireless sets at other levels. Commonwealth I don't know, presumably a little better than most combatants thanks to L&L. Finnish army, like most others, relied heavily on field telephones. This had disadvantages, but also some advantages due to which landlines are still used when radio silence is necessary. Portable radios were largely reserved for mobile forward observers (artillery general V.P. Nenonen playing an important role in developing this capability, again) and long range patrols. The first patrol radio, Kyynel (Teardrop) was just a transmitter, which was then joined with a separate receiver unit, Töpö. The patrols would listen for special messages read at pre-defined times on Finnish Broadcasting Company's channel and send their own coded reports in Morse. Finland was advanced in radio intelligence during WW2, and when these long range patrols were being chased by Soviet security forces the GHQ could sometimes give them real time details on the movements of their pursuers. Soviet radio discipline was pretty lax outside maskirovka operations ordered by higher ups, from what I have learned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:re: radios, it's again a broad question but here's a broad answer. Americans had lots of radios, everyone else not so much. In later stages of WW2 you could expect handie talkies to be found at platoon level all over the US organization. The range of it wasn't great, but sufficient for below company communicating. They also had more portable wireless sets at other levels. Commonwealth I don't know, presumably a little better than most combatants thanks to L&L. Yeah, eg. at Suomussalmi and Raate Soviets didn't even try to encrypt their few radios' messages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Soviet radio discipline was pretty lax outside maskirovka operations ordered by higher ups, from what I have learned. Something they learned from the Tsarists. then 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Seriously, if anyone cares about it I'd read a big effort post on Gunboats too.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Apparently they managed to kill an Austro-Hungarian officer; I never knew they went as advisers to the Ottoman army in the same way that the Germans did. They did! What's more, Turks went to Galicia as well (the Turkish XV Corps from Gallipoli). I know for a fact that one of them has published his memoirs (Mehmet Sevki Yazman was his name, I believe), but I don't think they're available in English. Here are some photos related to it, and here's a paper on the subject (in Polish only, unfortunately).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Seriously, if anyone cares about it I'd read a big effort post on Gunboats too. Yeah, that'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
 what's spanish for ungelegenheit
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Hey, the place is still standing and with a rather distinct lack of houses on fire. Quite peaceful, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
my dad posted:Hey, the place is still standing and with a rather distinct lack of houses on fire. Quite peaceful, indeed. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
I have a question for the Napoleonics in the thread about armament production. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the French Revolution / Napoleonic Wars saw the largest armies fielded in Europe since at least Roman times, beginning with Carnot's levée en masse. Now I know that China had been fielding armies that large or larger for centuries (assuming that state histories aren't embellishing in many cases), but these Chinese forces weren't based around firearms as the primary weapon for infantry like European armies. How did the various nations involved in the wars manage to produce enough rifles and other guns for such a major army buildup in a pre-industrial society? Were out-of-date guns or even pikes/crossbows/etc used to fill outpaced demand for armaments?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
they were not pre industrialized societies, op
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
I think it coincided with the rise of interchangeable parts and assembly line manufacturing, which helped. There was a weird burst of pike enthusiasm during the early revolution and thousands were requisitioned, but sanity prevailed before they were actually used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they were not pre industrialized societies, op I meant pre-machine-based / pre-industrial revolution production methods, my apologies. I know that in Britain and elsewhere in Europe the Industrial Revolution was going on or just starting, but I'm only familiar with that from how it affected commercial / textile industries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So, this stuff. Green glass, a lot of the time with merengue-like blobs on the sides. Wasn't industry at the time pretty constrained by local fuel availability due to the problems with bulk shipping over land and upriver? If you think of it in terms of getting dead trees to your place of manufacture it seems weird that they'd manage to make glass cheaply enough that a couple tons of it could just be basically wasted like that. Unless I'm too literal and the shovelling bit is hyperbole. Or, and I guess that's where the Central Europe thing comes in, someone is sitting on a river with a lot of forest upstream and having logs floed / barges of charcoal shipped to him just making GBS threads out glass and sending it downstream to where the English are docking. I'd love to read that article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
the empire is full of that glass. so full. the most glass. you'll love it
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:I have a question for the Napoleonics in the thread about armament production. Like somebody said, machined parts that could easily be produced and replace worn out parts on said guns, plus the general design of the Flintlock musket the European powers were using was almost a century old too when that conflict came about and armies and navies had plenty of guns from the previous centuries to pass around. How easy is to convert a doglock into a flintlock anyway? simply removing the lock or just switching out some parts? During the Napoleonic Wars as well it was a boom time for experimenting with the technology that would lead to the Industrial revolution. Man that pike phase was weird, but at the time it sort of made sense if you wanted to be cheap with your militia.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:I meant pre-machine-based / pre-industrial revolution production methods, my apologies. I know that in Britain and elsewhere in Europe the Industrial Revolution was going on or just starting, but I'm only familiar with that from how it affected commercial / textile industries. Pre-machine-based and pre-mass-production are two different things, though. You don't need machines to get a whole bunch of people in a shed making e.g. gun stocks from a common pattern, and you get stuff like http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Brown_Bess where there's a 'master copy' of the musket stored somewhere and anyone who wants to make them for the military goes to look at it, takes measurements and makes sure to produce something as close to it as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they were not pre industrialized societies, op what are you shortening to 'op'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
original poseur
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:what are you shortening to 'op'? Tier One Operator Who Operates
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:what are you shortening to 'op'? High-low Speed-drag Operator
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
old perv
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Oh, pikeman
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
On, Pappenheim!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If I want to do effort posts about carriers, none of you lot care if I do it in order, right? Next time on the History Channel: Aircraft Carriers of the Renaissance! Did you know that Leonardo da Vinci proposed not just heavier-than-air flight and submarines, but submarines capable of carrying aircraft, as early as 1482, more than 500 years before the Imperial Japanese Navy? Were Japanese planners reading Da Vinci's secret notebooks in 1935? More next Tuesday at 1:30pm/2:30PST!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
The answer to the question "should I post X" is always  unless your username is Keldoclock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Next time on the History Channel: Aircraft Carriers of the Renaissance! Did you know that Leonardo da Vinci proposed not just heavier-than-air flight and submarines, but submarines capable of carrying aircraft, as early as 1482, more than 500 years before the Imperial Japanese Navy? Were Japanese planners reading Da Vinci's secret notebooks in 1935? More next Tuesday at 1:30pm/2:30PST! And right after that: da Vinci's mechanical designs were very advanced for his time. How could he have designed heavier-tan-air vehicles and submarines without anything to go on? Were Aliens the inspiration?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Next time on the History Channel: Aircraft Carriers of the Renaissance! Did you know that Leonardo da Vinci proposed not just heavier-than-air flight and submarines, but submarines capable of carrying aircraft, as early as 1482, more than 500 years before the Imperial Japanese Navy? Were Japanese planners reading Da Vinci's secret notebooks in 1935? More next Tuesday at 1:30pm/2:30PST! GPW: Programming kicked this back. Frankly it wouldn't have been acceptable ten years ago. Not one mention of Hitler? Even that would just bring it up to our 2005 standard me guidelines. Resubmit with edits. Can you work aliens into it? Maybe da Vinci was a Neptunian? Perhaps a seance to contact him? Is there any way we could make this a reality contest? It's a lot more likely to get approved if we can avoid the expense of writers or flying s film crew out to talk with a random grad student and call them a field expert. Get your poo poo together or you'll be looking for work before thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:And right after that: da Vinci's mechanical designs were very advanced for his time. How could he have designed heavier-tan-air vehicles and submarines without anything to go on? Were Aliens the inspiration? Actually GPW lets just get this done now. Your fired, clear out your desk and give your materials to Archangel to unfuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Book recommendation time: I am that loving prat who reads books while walking. I have walked enough this summer to finish Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947, and it is really good. From a milhist pov, it is interesting to see how the performance of the Prussian military ebbs and flows and how political situations affect it. Edit: the part that deals with the 30 YW is kind of weirdly shortish. Bierjörg was a poo poo Elector. Kemper Boyd fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Actually GPW lets just get this done now. Your fired, clear out your desk and give your materials to Archangel to unfuck. Wait no no no! Come on man, I'll find a way to work truckers into it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I recently finished Battle Cry of Freedom and I had a question about Andersonville prison in Georgia. The book spends time explaining how bad the conditions were and how this was a known issue in the north, but the prison wasn't liberated until May 1865 when the war was over. I was wondering why the Union didn't make it a priority to liberate the camp earlier. Was Sherman stretched too thin to divert south?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Edit: the part that deals with the 30 YW is kind of weirdly shortish. Bierjörg was a poo poo Elector.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:I recently finished Battle Cry of Freedom and I had a question about Andersonville prison in Georgia. The book spends time explaining how bad the conditions were and how this was a known issue in the north, but the prison wasn't liberated until May 1865 when the war was over. Sherman did send a detachment under Stoneman in that direction with orders which included freeing the prison, but they were unfortunately defeated and captured.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:00
|
|