|
Agean90 posted:A bit unfair, he was legit talented at building and organizing an army in a way the confederates couldn't.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think that one of the things that the movie Gettysburg gets right, is that Buford was a loving genius for realizing that the Union really needed to hold the heights to win. Because in a Gay Black Lee universe, Gay Black Buford would have just abandoned the ridges in favor of retreating in the face of a superior foe, and then Meade would have been pressed hard to carry out a really stupid offensive against an entrenched ANV. Meade wanted to fight a defensive battle at Pipe Creek and Lee was actually fairly aggressive aa a general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
 That fake wooden bomb. Photo taken at St Mere Eglise earlier this year. The snopes article rated the story as undetermined and doesn't mention a wooden bomb actual existing. Not that a wooden bomb is hard to make... BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Not the first time I've seen/heard of those bombs, and I don't see why the story'd be fake. You gotta recon stuff anyways, and diversionary strikes are useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Meade wanted to fight a defensive battle at Pipe Creek and Lee was actually fairly aggressive aa a general. It should also be noted that retreat (albeit under Buford's delaying action and with what were probably nominal plans to defend from the heights South of the city) is precisely what the Union forces did on the first day. Buford gave them the time and the space to get there but Hancock likely is the linchpin since he could have just as easily gone "nah gently caress it get everyone back to Meade while we delay them from here" had he underestimated the strength of the heights. Buford knew height was good even when he was in front of the city but yeah Meade was definitely seeking to draw Meade into a dumb attack against a strong defense (hence his position at Pipe Creek) and Hancock probably was made aware of how strong Cemetery Hill/Ridge needed to be in order to justify Meade moving the main force up out of MD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Not the first time I've seen/heard of those bombs, and I don't see why the story'd be fake. You gotta recon stuff anyways, and diversionary strikes are useful. But if you already know the airfield is fake, your putting lives at risk with this gimmick strike, in addition to wasted resources to conduct it. You've also just let the enemy know you aren't falling for their deception! Better to deceive the deceiver imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:But if you already know the airfield is fake, your putting lives at risk with this gimmick strike, in addition to wasted resources to conduct it. You've also just let the enemy know you aren't falling for their deception! Better to deceive the deceiver imo It's a pretty good morale/propaganda move though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:But if you already know the airfield is fake, your putting lives at risk with this gimmick strike, in addition to wasted resources to conduct it. You've also just let the enemy know you aren't falling for their deception! Better to deceive the deceiver imo IIRC Saburo Sakai flew a flight over an American airfield and just did aerobatics and didn't get shot at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:But if you already know the airfield is fake, your putting lives at risk with this gimmick strike, in addition to wasted resources to conduct it. You've also just let the enemy know you aren't falling for their deception! Better to deceive the deceiver imo I think you're overestimating A) the risk and B) the level that the decision was probably made on assuming it really happened. Slipping an airplane or two over to gently caress with some random emplacement in the middle of a field isn't really a high risk mission. The Luftwaffe is all but absent and I doubt a fake airfield had a ton of AAA defending it. Also, if it was done chances are it was something a couple of pilots and maybe a crew chief cooked up. Slap a fake bomb on the external stores and have a joke at the Germans expense while you're on your way back from (or on your way to) something else. The airforce in the 40s wasn't the airforce today. gently caress, it could have just been done independently under the guise of a "training mission" or "testing out repairs on an aircraft." poo poo like that happens. Hell, during the Vietnam War we dropped a toilet on the north, and that was a command structure that was way, way more buttoned up than its WW2 predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Its not particularly uncommon for soldiers to "waste resources" ot put their lives at risk for gimmicks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Typhoon slips over fake airfield and drops fake bomb. Boys back home have a laugh. The war goes on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:poo poo like that happens. Hell, during the Vietnam War we dropped a toilet on the north, and that was a command structure that was way, way more buttoned up than its WW2 predecessors.  Toilets away! More info here http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC Saburo Sakai flew a flight over an American airfield and just did aerobatics and didn't get shot at. And Americans did a counterstrike over Sakai's airfield just to drop a letter that said: "Thanks for the airshow."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
 I cannot find a good description of the story and running on memory from sources I cannot remember but it basically goes along the lines of: Marines being all, macho alpha male, we are the first on the beaches, first wave, bringing the fight to the enemy and such. The engineers or more specifically, Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT), didn't take this too well. As they were on the beaches "first". Hence the sign that they erected, so that the marines could see it as they were landing in the first waves. They officially got chewed out for erecting signs instead of removing beach obstacles, mines, traps et cetera, but their higher ups not so secretly loved it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Remember that guy who cited World of Tanks as a source? Someone engaged with him again so I finally got sick of it and told him to shut the gently caress up. He left this parting shot (that I deleted, of course): quote:I see no point in disseminating your post, because it will be a never ending story. About every line your write is erroneous. The Strawman argument is your line of thought. Logic is indeed something strange to you. If you would have ever had a logical arguments exchange you would have learned that quickly. What remains for example of your last post is a couple of meaningless lines if you take off the nonsense and the insults… That last line is especially funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Beautiful reply. I scrolled back up to see some of his other posts- guy was truly delusional. In regards to the Marine fps: I have never seen or heard of a single unit using it, excluding the one I mentioned previously being used as an experimental test bed for technology (who is also using Starcraft). There's almost no training value to be had from it
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Some were very generous and cheerful. Others were melancholy drunks with mysterious pasts, and others were defrocked priests with an eye for the ladies. And then there was the occasional hotheaded young Gascon come to Paris to make his name... What were musketeers anyway? I never really understood what those guys were doing( apart from, I must assume, fire muskets at some point in between gallant swashbuckling).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Tias posted:What were musketeers anyway? I never really understood what those guys were doing( apart from, I must assume, fire muskets at some point in between gallant swashbuckling). Infantrymen who are not pikemen, grenadiers or other such riff raff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Tias posted:What were musketeers anyway? I never really understood what those guys were doing( apart from, I must assume, fire muskets at some point in between gallant swashbuckling). The Dumas Musketeers referred to these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musketeers_of_the_Guard
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Infantrymen who are not pikemen, grenadiers or other such riff raff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Is someone aware of a book-length social history of the cold war US armed forces? I got thinking about all the Vietnam war movie and book tropes about fragging and race tensions, and stuff from the 80s about drug problems etc., and wanted to see what's behind those, but all my searches just get bogged down in the zillion hits and sub-subcategories. Or is there an introductory syllabus on this somewhere that I can pilfer? Basically I'm interested in social conflict and discipline problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Tias posted:What were musketeers anyway? I never really understood what those guys were doing( apart from, I must assume, fire muskets at some point in between gallant swashbuckling). The Musketeers in the Dumas sense refer to the two Royal Musketeer companies belonging to the Royal Guard. Or more properly, they belong to the military arm of the French Crown, which wasn't just ceremonial guards but troops that were used in the field several times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Dumas Musketeers referred to these guys: Kemper Boyd posted:The Musketeers in the Dumas sense refer to the two Royal Musketeer companies belonging to the Royal Guard. Or more properly, they belong to the military arm of the French Crown, which wasn't just ceremonial guards but troops that were used in the field several times. Thanks! aphid_licker posted:Is someone aware of a book-length social history of the cold war US armed forces? I got thinking about all the Vietnam war movie and book tropes about fragging and race tensions, and stuff from the 80s about drug problems etc., and wanted to see what's behind those, but all my searches just get bogged down in the zillion hits and sub-subcategories. Or is there an introductory syllabus on this somewhere that I can pilfer? Basically I'm interested in social conflict and discipline problems. The online anarchist news service Infoshop made a kind of "greatest hits" of in-military resistance, I remember it being pretty good.. I'll look around for it. E: Got it! http://www.infoshop.org/Harrass-the-Brass
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is someone aware of a book-length social history of the cold war US armed forces? I got thinking about all the Vietnam war movie and book tropes about fragging and race tensions, and stuff from the 80s about drug problems etc., and wanted to see what's behind those, but all my searches just get bogged down in the zillion hits and sub-subcategories. Or is there an introductory syllabus on this somewhere that I can pilfer? Basically I'm interested in social conflict and discipline problems. I think it was drugs in the 70s; iirc the 80s was when they started getting poo poo sorted out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Is someone aware of a book-length social history of the cold war US armed forces? I got thinking about all the Vietnam war movie and book tropes about fragging and race tensions, and stuff from the 80s about drug problems etc., and wanted to see what's behind those, but all my searches just get bogged down in the zillion hits and sub-subcategories. Or is there an introductory syllabus on this somewhere that I can pilfer? Basically I'm interested in social conflict and discipline problems. Prodigal Soldiers is about Vietnam, the aftermath, and the rebuilding. It's exactly what you want. Dog Company Six is about fighting in Korea, if that's something you want to look at as well. Both come from a class I had that was a social history of the US military. Unfortunately I was having an awful time with depression and didn't learn much more than the book can give. Traitor's March (iirc) about Jon Riley and the mex-am war is also highly recommended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Where does the "No king tiger was ever penetrated in combat" thing come from? Even really basic places like Wikipedia seem to note that there losses (sometimes significant) from combat and presumably not every tank lost in combat drove in a puddle and drowned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:Thanks! Some of those books look interesting but that first anecdote feels like some sort of forwarded email / shared Facebook story
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Its not particularly uncommon for soldiers to "waste resources" ot put their lives at risk for gimmicks. During WW 1 the Germans were able to tap into unsecured British telephone networks in the trenches, and they used the info gained from this to put up insulting messages to the soldiers opposite them. Not the best use of an intel source, but the Brits didn't cotton on to what had happened for a while, so I guess it worked out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Some of those books look interesting but that first anecdote feels like some sort of forwarded email / shared Facebook story Infoshop is usually legit, using a credibility ranking system, FWIW. However, this being a feature I have no idea if it's bunk or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
sullat posted:During WW 1 the Germans were able to tap into unsecured British telephone networks in the trenches, and they used the info gained from this to put up insulting messages to the soldiers opposite them. Not the best use of an intel source, but the Brits didn't cotton on to what had happened for a while, so I guess it worked out. What a wasted opportunity. "Attention, General French just called and wants to see some privates personally. Step forward if you have seen Mike Rotch and Hugh Jass!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Where does the "No king tiger was ever penetrated in combat" thing come from? Even really basic places like Wikipedia seem to note that there losses (sometimes significant) from combat and presumably not every tank lost in combat drove in a puddle and drowned. I'm pretty sure that the original claim was "never penetrated in combat from the front" and then "never penetrated in combat in the upper front plate". Wehraboos are dumb as bricks, so that gradually became "never penetrated in combat".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Prodigal Soldiers is about Vietnam, the aftermath, and the rebuilding. It's exactly what you want. Dog Company Six is about fighting in Korea, if that's something you want to look at as well. Both come from a class I had that was a social history of the US military. Unfortunately I was having an awful time with depression and didn't learn much more than the book can give. Small world, I had a social history of the US military class with Prodigal Soldiers and Dog Company Six as well. 20th century military history is out of my wheelhouse but I remember liking Prodigal Soldiers well enough. Its worth remembering though it was published in the mid 90s in the aftermath of Desert Storm though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I'm pretty sure that the original claim was "never penetrated in combat from the front" and then "never penetrated in combat in the upper front plate". Wehraboos are dumb as bricks, so that gradually became "never penetrated in combat". I was going to say, I've seen at least one photo of one with a hole in the mantlet from APDS. I assume the typical soviet usage was just to shell them with HE from 122/152 guns until the crew dissolved, though? I can see why that might lead to someone saying "can't be penetrated", if they don't understand that there's knockouts from "non-penetrating" hits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
The front came apart at the seams from one hit of 122 mm HE. In trials this also caused the tank to catch fire. 122 mm and 152 mm AP could also "fairly" penetrate the front, but this was established in cheaty Communist propaganda trials so it clearly doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I'm pretty sure that the original claim was "never penetrated in combat from the front" and then "never penetrated in combat in the upper front plate". Wehraboos are dumb as bricks, so that gradually became "never penetrated in combat". I've also heard this qualified as "never had the front plate penetrated by a ground weapon." Can I also say the first time the King Tiger saw combat, it resulted in three lost king Tigers. Because the T-34/85s 1) saw them chillin' in a village one night, 2) so they pulled up in a cornfield outside the village and camouflaged themselves in the very tall corn stalks. 3) Next morning, the King Tigers roll by, only to get shot to poo poo from behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the pointers guys, ilu <3
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Marlows posted:Small world, I had a social history of the US military class with Prodigal Soldiers and Dog Company Six as well. 20th century military history is out of my wheelhouse but I remember liking Prodigal Soldiers well enough. Its worth remembering though it was published in the mid 90s in the aftermath of Desert Storm though. UNC-CH by any mad mischance? If you had Glathaar's class, I'll kill for your notes. Ensign Expendable posted:The front came apart at the seams from one hit of 122 mm HE. In trials this also caused the tank to catch fire. Wherabingo really needs a ballistics show trials square.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The front came apart at the seams from one hit of 122 mm HE. In trials this also caused the tank to catch fire. Yeah, a friend's post was "no credible evidence exists for a frontal kill of a Tiger II in combat." I started googling for frontal penetrations (anything you guys know would help), and overwhelmingly I keep seeing "never knocked out in combat".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
I would advise against googling for frontal penetrations unless you're looking for something other than tank combat reports. I mean what's the point of the "never knocked out in combat from the front by a ground weapon on a tuesday" claim anyway? The Maginot line never fell in frontal combat either but that doesn't mean it was especially effective at defending France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Google results are based on your previous search history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:24
|
|
