|
HEY GAL posted:here is an article about a conscientious objector. it's also relevant to my interests, since it's about a man whose honor was taken away from him and who "says he cannot die—he literally cannot leave this earth—until [it] is fully restored." Bizarre from start to finish
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
NLJP posted:Generally there was actually a shaft that went down to a repository at the bottom that was shovelled out every now and again. It wasn't usually just a straightup hole with your cladger swinging in the wind. I guess that fell off on all the ones I've seen because they literally look like half an outhouse sticking out of the wall with a little shelf that I presume has a hole in the bottom.  Maybe I've only ever seen budget castles. An internal shaft would make more sense as I doubt many lords would like their castle to have a long brown streak down the side. Or I guess you could do it like the Germans and build an entire viaduct and extra tower to put the shitter in: 
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Which castle was it that got captured by people crawling up the toilet shaft or whatever it was called? I can't remember.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Is it okay to get mad about a three-hour documentary series that shamelessly bills itself as "The Somme: Both Sides Of The Wire", and then the presenter says the name "Falkenhayn" approximately 1.3333 (recurring) times per hour? I hope the fucker donates his body to medical science so they can figure out how he got that brass neck. 100 Years Ago 3 August: A clevair ruse on the Somme, where there is now a run on barbed wire, wins a few hundred yards worth of trench. Hurrah. There's obviously a really good party going off in Tabora, because there's now troops from three different empires converging on it; nobody has manufactured any spare parts for the Mark I tanks yet; Oskar Teichman's men prepare for combat in Egypt; Oswald Boelcke's junket has now reached Bulgaria; Max Plowman explores Le Touquet, which he's rather enjoying; E.S. Thompson shares stories of naked horseplay and alleged executions; and Maximilian Mugge spends the day learning how to pretend to look busy. 4 August: The ANZACs and chums attack and capture Pozieres windmill, and one of their sergeants becomes the latest recipient of the order "get these dead fuckers piled up into a barricade". The Ottomans finally decide to poo poo at the Suez Canal rather than getting off the pot; Oskar Teichman makes friends with some prisoners; it's nearly time for Sixth Isonzo to get underway, but don't worry, General Cadorna has actually learned something from the last 11 months of slaughter!; Clifford Wells has arrived in France and immediately takes the chance to insult all Quebecois; Herbert Sulzbach still has no work to do, apparently; Neil Tennant complains about the wind this time; and E.S. Thompson continues arsing around with gay abandon. 5 August: It's a curate's egg of a situation for the Ottomans in the Caucasus; the Battle of Romani turns against their mates on the Suez Canal; Oskar Teichman gets his leg broken by shrapnel and does not, in fact, grumble; a British Red Cross man describes the state of Verdun itself (literally falling down around his ears); General Haig is delighted to see the Australians beating off the enemy on three separate occasions; E.S. Thompson gets on the march and complains that his sergeant won't let him drink the water they're carrying to keep the water-cooled machine-guns cool if there should be an attack; Captain Henri Desagneaux tries to convince himself that a local cesspit is flooding his underground shelter with water; Max Plowman shows us that even a committed pacifist can have silly romantic notions about the Army; and Maximilian Mugge is now thinking he might as well be sent up the line, if his skill with languages isn't actually going to be used. NLJP posted:shaft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7OxTxAvvLw  
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. My Dad just texted me raving about "Fury", a movie I have been wanting to watch. He told me a bit about the plot, and when he got to the point about "lone tank holding off 300 Wehrmacht troops" I said something like "RIP, boys" I am no armor-head, but it has always been my understanding that a single tank without supporting infantry vs enemy infantry is pretty much hosed. Then Dad says "Yeah Hollywood, but something like this did really happen" and quotes the wiki article about the film, which claims that the film was inspired by a story in "Death Traps", a book which I haven't read, but have heard mentioned in these milhist threads several times. Wiki says it was a disabled(!?) tank that had a bunch of German troops walk up on it without spotting it at night, and the next morning the tank was still there and alive with lots of dead Germans around it. Can anyone tell me about this? Cursory googling leads me to believe the story is possibly apocryphal, but I don't know. I'm going to watch the film regardless based on his recommendation, but I find it difficult to believe a single tank with no supporting infantry of its own could hold its own against large numbers of infantry then, now, or ever. They cannot even see well enough out of the tank, to defend themselves. Am I correct, naive, or maybe just ignorant? Also, what did you folks think of the film overall, if anyone saw it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. I thought it was okay as a character movie. The CGI/graphics were good and the plot was good-to-great but there were some big problems at the end when they have this entire "Battle-hardened" SS group that literally just zerg rushes the tank while dying in droves. And they also miss like 3 panzerfaust shots from 10 meters out which was ridiculous. I'd say its worth a watch, but I'm super into anything WW2-related so it was an easy sell for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:I'm going to watch the film regardless based on his recommendation, but I find it difficult to believe a single tank with no supporting infantry of its own could hold its own against large numbers of infantry then, now, or ever. They cannot even see well enough out of the tank, to defend themselves. Am I correct, naive, or maybe just ignorant? The movie is better if you just stop watching it after the tank goes over that land mine. Up till that point I thought the movie was actually pretty good. More than a few problems with the Tiger scene but I felt the emotions and attitudes regarding how Tigers were viewed and fought by American tankers to be, okay(ish). Same story though, a Tiger should have supporting infantry and should not be operating by itself. It should also not be charging Shermans. The final part of the movie with a disabled sherman mauling hundreds of SS soldiers, was just absurd and stupid. It took about 15 minutes of movie time before they got out the panzerfausts to use against an enemy tank... >.< The little speech by americans driving a tank into a foreign country and then make a little speech about how that sherman was their home and how important it was for them to defend their home, while invading another country... >.< Go back to your own lines, get a new tank and prosecute the war. Experienced tank crew are valuable, don't throw your lives away in a stupid heroic act of defending a broken machine. EDIT: It actually felt like two completely different movies, before and after the landmine. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. The middle act is quite good. The more combat-oriented first and third acts are, as Jobbo_Fett said, fairly unrealistic, but otherwise pretty well done in terms of effects and style and not so ridiculous that it's not fun to watch. The grog in you will squirm a bit, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. Fury isn't a WW2 movie. It's a Vietnam movie. Being a WW2 movie or a Vietnam movie doesn't really mean they're meant to depict their respective war though, just the sort of cultural obsessions that surround their cultural eras. Fury is inauthentic to 1945, right from the beginning. But that's not a bad thing, and I don't think you should worry about it. I liked the weird undercurrents that it developed, and I don't think they would be possible if Brad Pitt and co were fighting the Vietnamese. My feelings are, if you can forget for an hour who Brad Pitt is, you can forget that actual WWII happened, and just take the setting in. Also, Death Traps is a big load of rumours and trench stories, interspersed with some ghostwriter's ideas of how the war should have been run. It's not a source to run to for accuracy. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
I heard the original plan was that it would be a platoon of Hitler Youth at the end, so of course the dumb, inexperienced kids would all have no idea what they were doing and only succeed through sheer force of numbers. Of course, either way, the tank loses in the end. Maybe the final kill count was a little inflated, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. My biggest complaint about Fury was that there should've been even more looting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Which castle was it that got captured by people crawling up the toilet shaft or whatever it was called? I can't remember. Château Gaillard
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:here is an article about a conscientious objector. it's also relevant to my interests, since it's about a man whose honor was taken away from him and who "says he cannot die—he literally cannot leave this earth—until [it] is fully restored." Thanks for this - what a story! "Shoot, you son of a bitch", wonderful. Really interests me that he pursued that honourable discharge, most of my guys took pride in the fact that they were dishonourably discharged from a dishonourable institution. Edit: also it seems like he was at Leavenworth in 1919, possibly during the great strike which is really the stand out moment of the American CO movement. lenoon fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK tankophiles, I know of no better place to ask this. Anything in Death Traps that wasn't about Cooper's basic job should pretty much be disregarded on principle. It could have been interesting if someone just got a bunch of stories from this guy, but there was a ghost writer throwing in a ton of nonsense, mostly to sell books out of controversy (it worked). The story sounds fishy, or maybe exaggerated. It's not impossible, though. There's the famous story of the KV tank at Raisenai that held up a battalion (I think) for a whole day, inflicting a few dozen casualties and knocking out a few guns and trucks. There were isolated stories around the war of similar deeds, usually involving armor facing an unprepared and/or unexpecting enemy. Nothing on the level of what was depicted at the end of Fury, though. One of the benefits of the Sherman was lots of ways for crew to look outside. There were multiple periscopes and the like. It wouldn't have been perfect but was arguably the best tank in the war in terms of vision. The film was alright. There were some pretty accurate depicitions (when they're assaulting the hedgerow was alright, although condensed because it would probably be hard to film everyone spaced out realistically), and some pretty bad ones (there's a 5 on 1 Sherman-Tiger fight). Like everyone else said, it could have ended shortly after landmine, and it could have been a pretty good character movie about what happens to different people based on their experiences. It really felt like there were three writers in the film who were in an editing fight before the script had to be shipped. Plan Z fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:It's not impossible, though. There's the famous story of the KV tank at Raisenai that held up a battalion (I think) for a whole day, inflicting a few dozen casualties and knocking out a few guns and trucks. There were isolated stories around the war of similar deeds, usually involving armor facing an unprepared and/or unexpecting enemy. Nothing on the level of what was depicted at the end of Fury, though. Yeah there are a number of stories of lone tanks holding up a ridiculously disproportionate force. Its only possible if the opposing force happens to not have any weapons capable of penetrating the armour of the tank, but its only a matter of time till they bring something up or are able to call in artillery or something else. Panzerfausts I think could penetrate just about anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
I am OK with the Tiger fight being iffy, considering they used an actual Tiger and had limitations on how it was allowed to be used. It does reflect some things extremely well, like the feeling of frustration felt by many soldiers on the front in early 1945: Germany had collapsed and it was obvious, yet the dying has not stopped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I am OK with the Tiger fight being iffy, considering they used an actual Tiger and had limitations on how it was allowed to be used. A more realistic tank battle probably would've been very un-cinematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
It was a good film right up until 'I want to send 4 tanks to try to intercept and block an infantry column *somewhere in this grid square*' and my reaction was 'what if they just go around you? or send a couple of guys to sneak up? ' Brad Pitt should have just gone 'that's infantry work and you know it'. e: the attack on the woods seemed about right, as did the attack on the town.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Maximilian Mugge is now thinking he might as well be sent up the line, if his skill with languages isn't actually going to be used. For a smart bloke he hasn't learned much
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Thanks for this - what a story! "Shoot, you son of a bitch", wonderful. do you think one reason for the difference might be that he doesn't seem to have a...political support group, or parallel political structure to live in, like your guys? He's not a member of anything as far as I know, he's just a devout Lutheran who didn't believe America should have gone to war in that case. He heard Debs once, but the article doesn't mention joining anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Anything in Death Traps that wasn't about Cooper's basic job should pretty much be disregarded on principle. It could have been interesting if someone just got a bunch of stories from this guy, but there was a ghost writer throwing in a ton of nonsense, mostly to sell books out of controversy (it worked). The story sounds fishy, or maybe exaggerated. In the case of the KV, that's conceivable. The KV Tank was absurd. A single shell from its massive bore and your Pz2/3 was toast. The Germans had no way to penetrate its armor until 1942, and hell, the worst part about this was that it wasn't the first time they faced a heavy tank they couldn't destroy. It's the classic heavy tank example, because each time a KV sortied on the battlefield, it would turn the tide until it ran into a ditch/was knocked out by creative German sapping. Hell, the conversion of AA guns into ersatz AT guns was because the Germans had to come up with some answer to a massive behemoth with a gun that can destroy any 1941-era German tank. The reason why I think the idea of a Sherman holding off tons of Germans is absurd is that the Sherman was a medium tank that was very easily penetrable in 1944, either by conventional AT guns or via infantry-issued AT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:It's not impossible, though. There's the famous story of the KV tank at Raisenai that held up a battalion (I think) for a whole day, inflicting a few dozen casualties and knocking out a few guns and trucks. There were isolated stories around the war of similar deeds, usually involving armor facing an unprepared and/or unexpecting enemy. Nothing on the level of what was depicted at the end of Fury, though. Why hasn't someone made THAT into a movie. 6 poor guys holding off an entire Panzer Division, and 3 of them are buried without names.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why hasn't someone made THAT into a movie. Not enough Americans in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
That's the one, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
The best scene in fury is breakfast and everything after Pitt leaves the turret during the final battle is a fever-dream hallucinated by a very scared and scarred soldier. I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why hasn't someone made THAT into a movie. 6 poor guys holding off an entire Panzer Division, and 3 of them are buried without names. Russians cannot be heroes. :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:you're welcome, glad you liked it! Maybe. It was the No Conscription Fellowship line that a dishonourable discharge is a mark of honour, and they drove that pretty hard in their newspapers and periodicals. I guess without a group or a solid backup telling you that what you did was honourable, you'll look for that from the Army itself. But then again, now that it's sat ticking over in the back of my mind, what greater victory for the Objector over the military can there be? He's fought for them to legally admit that what he did, and what thousands of other Americans did was honourable. What a victory over the military, over militarism itself! I think that's the principle that's at play here. He wanted recognition as an honourable man, and not from society, or from other COs, or peace organisations, but through sheer bloody mindedness, and stubborn refusal, principle and argument, from the Army itself, that they would acknowledge his refusal to fight as the honourable actions of an honourable man. "Shoot, you son of a bitch" goes up there with the Frenchmen for steadfast refusal. I'll work out some way of putting it into my commentary to Soul of a Skunk (now 1/10ths done!).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
What frenchmen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Tias posted:What frenchmen? Sorry, forgetting that it's all a bit niche! I covered the Frenchmen (with help) in one of the George Baker posts - here
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Maybe. It was the No Conscription Fellowship line that a dishonourable discharge is a mark of honour, and they drove that pretty hard in their newspapers and periodicals. I guess without a group or a solid backup telling you that what you did was honourable, you'll look for that from the Army itself. i would interpret it as his victory against what would try to grind him down or call him worthless (because he obviously believes that life is worthless without honor), not against the idea of going to war
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
That's a good point - got a bit over excited there. I do like this guy, carrying his blackjack to scare away "punks" and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
A lot of Fury was teens trying to write the most hosed up and badass poo poo you can think of. Like that one lieutenant shooting himself while on fire. That and some other stuff came off as so ridiculous as to be laughable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Maybe. It was the No Conscription Fellowship line that a dishonourable discharge is a mark of honour, and they drove that pretty hard in their newspapers and periodicals. I guess without a group or a solid backup telling you that what you did was honourable, you'll look for that from the Army itself. Might also be an American thing. In the US, a dishonorable discharge is equivalent in many ways to being a felon - can't vote, can't run for office, can't own a gun, etc. No matter the reason, it'd be a huge handicap in civilian life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
I think Fury is the first movie I've seen that actually got the way bullets sound and tracers look right. I always appreciated that. Why is it that war movies always feature actors that are way, way, way too drat old to be in the army? Hey, I'm 40 year old lieutenant clint eastwood and I'm taking orders from 42 year old tom hanks who must be the oldest infantry captain in the ETO, except then he meets 51 year old airborne captain ted danson and everybody is surprised until 46 year old lieutenant brad pitt walks up only to be outdone by 51 year old staff sergeant brad pitt
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
lenoon posted:That's a good point - got a bit over excited there. I do like this guy, carrying his blackjack to scare away "punks" and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I think Fury is the first movie I've seen that actually got the way bullets sound and tracers look right. I always appreciated that. I guess I'd rather a competent actor than correct ages, but war movies kind of lose something when you gloss over the number of situations where people are dealing with hosed up, life or death situations, and the old guy in the squad is maybe pushing 30. Matt Damon played the youngest of four brothers in Saving Private Ryan and he was 25-26 at filming and 27 or 28 at release. That's a case where I feel like rolling up on a scrawny 18 year-old would've had more impact to the audience. Not to mention how stark the change in perception is in real life when you're off to go talk to 2LT Whoever, and you roll up on a guy with grey hair and realize he'd probably been a senior NCO before changing over instead of a kid who graduated college 9 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:A lot of Fury was teens trying to write the most hosed up and badass poo poo you can think of. Like that one lieutenant shooting himself while on fire. That and some other stuff came off as so ridiculous as to be laughable. It's Warhammer 40k in World War Two, and if you take it as such, it isn't too bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Tias posted:What frenchmen? I assumed people were talking about Murat demanding the firing squad shoot him in the heart so they wouldn't mess up his face
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I assumed people were talking about Murat demanding the firing squad shoot him in the heart so they wouldn't mess up his face
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:It's not impossible, though. There's the famous story of the KV tank at Raisenai that held up a battalion (I think) for a whole day, inflicting a few dozen casualties and knocking out a few guns and trucks. There were isolated stories around the war of similar deeds, usually involving armor facing an unprepared and/or unexpecting enemy. Nothing on the level of what was depicted at the end of Fury, though. I was going to mention that, a heavy tank getting tracked at an important point may conceivably present an obstacle if you don't have a gun big enough to penetrate it, but if people are getting close to the tank and can't figure out a way to blow it up, that says more about the people than the skill of the tank crew or mightiness of the engineering involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I assumed people were talking about Murat demanding the firing squad shoot him in the heart so they wouldn't mess up his face At first I read that as Marat and was    Marat's death mask, cast by one Marie Tussaud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:58
|
|
