|
gently caress the Soviet Union, just in case.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
WW2 Data And so ends the French explosives. It wasn't long, but that's all the book had on their stuff, aside from igniters/fuzes. Did the French have something similar to the S-Mine, commonly known as the Bouncing Betty? What did French Anti-Tank mines look like and how did they work? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You don't need to do anything with the train itself. One well-placed mortar round on the track ahead of it is all it takes. Takes more than that to derail a train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8gV4DJZUw Incidentally, if anyone wants to buy a working Vickers guns, now's your chance: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/selling-my-vickers-hmg/ Seems like a screaming price, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Seems like a screaming price, too. edit: holky gently caress it's gorgeous, but i have a huge soft spot for early 20th century tech
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:HMS Implacable? Laid down 1797, launched as Duguay-Trouin into the French navy in 1800, survived Trafalgar, captured by the RN and recommissioned as Implacable in November 1805, in active sea service into the 1840s, then converted to a training ship/ accommodation ship/ coal hulk. Until 1949, when she was scuttled.  Why the gently caress would you scuttle that? Fucks sake just park it for tourists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Almost certainly money reasons. Upkeep of an old ship like that, even as a museum ship, is probably fairly high, and the immediate post-war years in Britain were pretty economically tight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Argh that Vickers. If the place I work hadn't had it's funds frozen by the MOD we'd all be over that. We got a lovely Maxim, but we NEED a Vickers.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Argh that Vickers. If the place I work hadn't had it's funds frozen by the MOD we'd all be over that. We got a lovely Maxim, but we NEED a Vickers. MOD? Even if your funds hadn't been frozen how the hell would it be legal for you to import a working fully automatic weapon? (Also wouldn't be legal for the US seller to export to you.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I assume they are some kind of museum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I assume they are some kind of museum. He works at a regimental museum, yeah. Re: Implacable, it's worth remembering the idea of keeping ships around as museums is actually pretty recent and something that only happened round then for really, really symbolic ships. Hell, Victory came close to being scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
West Germany should've bought back Goeben 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:MOD? minipax
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Soviet terroristic army used terrible tactics like lining up in front of a ditch to get shot, gathering inside buildings that are set on fire, or working as slaves for the German war machine until they dropped dead of starvation or exhaustion. Tanya was no angel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Here is a thing about armoured trains in Finland (in Finnish only, sadly), written in 2009 : http://docplayer.fi/5510194-Jouni-sillanmaki-panssarijunia-suomessa-suomalaisia-panssarijunissa.html It seemed well referenced, from a glance at least. In page 8 there is a reference to 5 German armoured trains (Of the German East Sea Division (Itämerendivisioona) which fought in the later stages of the Finnish Civil War) and the book mentions a total of "at least 24" armoured trains having operated in Finland during the war. Several of these were sort of ersatz-armoured trains, one being described as being armoured with logs and bricks, but at least six of the ones used by the Red side of the conflict were build in a machinery shop (konepaja) and were armoured and armed properly.  One of the trains built by the Reds. According to the Finnish Wikipedia page Finland maintained two armoured trains in WW2, used as AA-platforms from 1941 onwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, basically. If it's true that we spend undue amounts of time dunking on the germans, it's because we talk to idiots like these goobers constantly everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:eventually i learned not to say "german military history" when people said "so what do you do" LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT PANZERS 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
spectralent posted:edit: Some wehraboo palette cleanser: Which, y'know, is why the western front resulted in 10-1 losses for the allied forces? Did this guy get his idea of world war 2 from the latest wolfenstein game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:HMS Implacable? Laid down 1797, launched as Duguay-Trouin into the French navy in 1800, survived Trafalgar, captured by the RN and recommissioned as Implacable in November 1805, in active sea service into the 1840s, then converted to a training ship/ accommodation ship/ coal hulk. Until 1949, when she was scuttled. Also, note that Victory wasn't doing 'honourary' service most of her service life. Launched in 1765, still a telegraphy school in 1906. As I say, museum ships, a fairly modern concept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which, y'know, is why the western front resulted in 10-1 losses for the allied forces? I guess in his head, the soviets didn't get trained at all, so they just got herded into machineguns, whereas the americans and brits were just trained in bad tactics, so they actually tried to cover each other and just weren't as good as the german ubermensch. I mean, I'm not really here to translate from nazi, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Money. They even tried to flog her to the French, but they couldn't afford to preserve her either. Fortunately HMS Trincomalee (which was moored alongside Implacable when she was a stationary establishment) was preserved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Trincomalee There was also HMS Wellesley, launched in 1815, fought in the First Opium War, used as a training ship until 1940 when she was sunk by German bombing.  Trincomalee and Implacable (then known as Foudroyant) on Trafalgar Day 1943. feedmegin posted:Also, note that Victory wasn't doing 'honourary' service most of her service life. Launched in 1765, still a telegraphy school in 1906. As I say, museum ships, a fairly modern concept. Very good point! See also, HMS Warrior (1860)- in use here as an oil jetty in 1977:  She looks like this now:  Lobster God fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
The place used to be partly funded by the Ministry of Defence, but since the British army contractions of the post Cold War and general passage of time it really is becoming just general military history rather than a legacy sort of thing. Basically the clock started when the Light Infantry merged with several other British Army regiments into The Rifles. We've got a tacky rear end gift shop to try and make ends meet. Anyone want a shell case piggy bank or generic looking metal flask with MILITARY fonts on the side?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:West Germany should've bought back Goeben Would just like to remind everyone that there is one ship from the Kaiser's navy still afloat; and on top of that, it's still doing the job it was originally intended for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_von_Goetzen
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
It is still steaming along helping the community of that area too. What a lovely ending for WW1 for once.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
You enter the navy for life, she should be converted to a missile destroyer, or maybe a very small CIWS platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
I'm reading Killer Angels and when officers send/receive messages from couriers it's always "So-and-so sends his compliments and..." and "Give Col. So-and-so my compliments and request that he..." I've noticed it in other books about military of the era, like in the O'Brien novels, and wondered what that meant in a military context. Is it just overly polite formality or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'm reading Killer Angels and when officers send/receive messages from couriers it's always "So-and-so sends his compliments and..." and "Give Col. So-and-so my compliments and request that he..." I've noticed it in other books about military of the era, like in the O'Brien novels, and wondered what that meant in a military context. Is it just overly polite formality or what? edit: think the written equivalent of tipping your big fluffy hat to the other guy HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Also all those guys knew or at least knew of each other. Think of it like a small incestuous profession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also all those guys knew or at least knew of each other. Think of it like a small incestuous profession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'm reading Killer Angels and when officers send/receive messages from couriers it's always "So-and-so sends his compliments and..." and "Give Col. So-and-so my compliments and request that he..." I've noticed it in other books about military of the era, like in the O'Brien novels, and wondered what that meant in a military context. Is it just overly polite formality or what? That really is how they wrote to one another, to include officers of opposing forces. There are reams of primary source documents where you can read the actual language they used; Foote in particular was very fond of citing correspondence. as far as I can tell just about everything that was written by either side, regardless of author or recipient, was signed your most obedient servant
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Are there any documented trash talking in these letters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Are there any documented trash talking in these letters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That really is how they wrote to one another, to include officers of opposing forces. There are reams of primary source documents where you can read the actual language they used; Foote in particular was very fond of citing correspondence. Oh I for sure believe they did it, it's just so perfunctory I was wondering if it had some significance in a military context, as if "compliment" had a different meaning in this case. Googling for "military compiliment" is, of course, useless for this purpose. One of the themes of this book is how Southern (Virginian) adherence to ideas of chivalry and elan and valor made the disaster at Gettysburg inevitable while Longstreet begged Lee to please not do any of this stuff. I dunno how true that is, historical fiction and all, but Shaara certainly casts Lee as a man who was basically required by his military culture to attack at Gettysburg. There's a great exchange in the book between Longstreet and the British observer Fremantle, where Fremantle is just heaping copious praise on Lee as the finest soldier of his era and asks Longstreet to comment on the Southern army's tactics and Longstreet was like "uh we are basically lucky as gently caress that the Union generals are constantly loving up on the cusp of massive decisive victories". zoux fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also all those guys knew or at least knew of each other. Think of it like a small incestuous profession. I like to think it was all Winfield Scott's fault, the stodgy old geezer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Are there any documented trash talking in these letters? Not as much as you would think based on the fact they're actually fighting a war against one another, but there is still plenty of it there.... You just have to look for it carefully under the flowery language. Everybody's favorite example of it is probably the correspondence of Hood and Sherman around Atlanta. You have these two guys who are both exceptional writers and are both pretty brilliant, basically having The mid 19th century equivalent of a YouTube comments sections discussion with one another About the nature of war and race relations and a bunch of other things
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Not as much as you would think based on the fact they're actually fighting a war against one another, but there is still plenty of it there.... You just have to look for it carefully under the flowery language. I feel like a19th century discussion of race relations looks pretty much the same as a YouTube comment section anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh I for sure believe they did it, it's just so perfunctory I was wondering if it had some significance in a military context, as if "compliment" had a different meaning in this case. Googling for "military compiliment" is, of course, useless for this purpose. If you want to understand Lee at Gettysburg you really have to go back to the decision to undertake the Pennsylvania Campaign in the first place. Lee doesn't have a plan that goes beyond 'march around a Northern state for a bit and then have a battle' and that's why when he gets a battle, despite being in the wrong place and on the wrong terms and him knowing this he can't see any option but to follow through as far as he can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you want to understand Lee at Gettysburg you really have to go back to the decision to undertake the Pennsylvania Campaign in the first place. Lee doesn't have a plan that goes beyond 'march around a Northern state for a bit and then have a battle' and that's why when he gets a battle, despite being in the wrong place and on the wrong terms and him knowing this he can't see any option but to follow through as far as he can. Was retreat not a thing in the American civil war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Was retreat not a thing in the American civil war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Was retreat not a thing in the American civil war? Sure it was. The Army of the Potomac did it every other month.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Was retreat not a thing in the American civil war? Lee knew that time was not on his side. He had inflicted a bunch of defeats on the Army of the Potomac but it remained. He felt he needed a big win on Northern soil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:34
|
|
