|
American history classes teach "French and Indian War" because that was a really important event in American history. I remember AP Euro had a huge segment on the Seven Years War that was very detailed but that isn't a thing most high school students get.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
It's all bad branding. Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Hundred Years War....
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Hundred Years War->Eighty Years War->Thirty Years War->Seven Years War->Seven Days War progress!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Me, I think we should go back to naming wars after flowers e: or maybe fungi would be more appropriate...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Me, I think we should go back to naming wars after flowers War of the Button Mushrooms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I'd play a game set in Gravity's Rainbow until running out of SAN stat irlCyrano4747 posted:Huh. This is interesting. I don't know much about what makes out of tolerance parts actually work, but you see this a TON on an ad hoc basis in late WW2 german small arms manufacture. By '44 and '45 the various factories are going through the piles of reject parts from the 30s and early 40s and just seeing what will fit together and still make a functional gun. This leads to a lot of weirdo franken guns. How have those not been long thrown into a blast furnace as scrap by that point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:War of the Button Mushrooms. Criminean War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Quality control in those factories using slave labour is just a weird thing to think about. Would they murder workers who produce too many rejected parts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Send them to the mines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
The fighting in America over the seven years' war also started because of a territorial dispute with a French fort being attacked by a colonial British force led by a certain George Washington. It blew my mind when I read about that while flipping through my high school history textbook, and I'm surprised that nobody ever brings that up, because it makes a nice little circular story of the "father of our country" also being part of the cause of the war that made Britain want to get tax money that made the colonies revolt. Not that he was by himself the sole reason for the war, but after France and Britain started duking it out, the rest of Europe all decided to gank each other
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Something in the style of Dynasty Warriors would probably work better for a early modern action game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR9cjDaKEh8 close enough
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The fighting in America over the seven years' war also started because of a territorial dispute with a French fort being attacked by a colonial British force led by a certain George Washington. It blew my mind when I read about that while flipping through my high school history textbook, and I'm surprised that nobody ever brings that up, because it makes a nice little circular story of the "father of our country" also being part of the cause of the war that made Britain want to get tax money that made the colonies revolt. I'm not even kidding, the original lyrics to "History has its Eyes On You" from Hamilton has Washington lamenting his greatest mistake: he started the French and Indian War. It was changed to "I sent my men straight into a massacre, I witnessed their deaths firsthand" to make it less funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It is, for the most part. Grant certainly has some issues with alcohol, and went on some crazy benders from time to time, but not while anything important was actually happening. In Peter Wilson's The Thirty Years War some general turns hardcore alcoholic in almost every chapter and from Hey Gal's research it seems like the lower ranks where as bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:This ugly thing showed up on my Facebook feed today. It implies that (white) Confederate sympathizers are the only real Southerners. I was just contemplating on the benefit of going to a major geophysics conference in New Orleans. Now I think I will go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:The game has.....not aged well. It's a game about crawling through fields while speak and spells try to kill you from beyond your field of vision. It`s simultaneously a lovely game and one that on occasion comes together almost eerily well Like I can remember one time when I was infiltrating a town on my own with satchel charges to blow up supply depots and a radio shack. It was a completely white knuckle experince as a bullet or two could kill you, and I was having to hide in shrubs while methodiclly taking down guards. Then a APC started rolling through the bushes seeking to crush me. I dropped a satchel charge and then moved a distance that I hoped wouldn`t kill me in the explosion, and then set it off when the APC came rolling in. This is offset with hours of loading guys onto trucks and being sniped by T-72 from kilometers away and some of the most punishingly dumb mission design Driving very very slowly up of hills in tanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The fighting in America over the seven years' war also started because of a territorial dispute with a French fort being attacked by a colonial British force led by a certain George Washington. It blew my mind when I read about that while flipping through my high school history textbook, and I'm surprised that nobody ever brings that up, because it makes a nice little circular story of the "father of our country" also being part of the cause of the war that made Britain want to get tax money that made the colonies revolt. This is featured in the prologue of Assassin's creed 3! I remember it distinctly because I accidentally stabbed George Washington in the face while hiding in a bush (this causes the mission to fail, if you were wondering)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Hundred Years War->Eighty Years War->Thirty Years War->Seven Years War->Seven Days War Until you remember the next step, as told in the super-serious and for real documentary series Half-Life. Then you go "Oh poo poo!" SlothfulCobra posted:The fighting in America over the seven years' war also started because of a territorial dispute with a French fort being attacked by a colonial British force led by a certain George Washington. It blew my mind when I read about that while flipping through my high school history textbook, and I'm surprised that nobody ever brings that up, because it makes a nice little circular story of the "father of our country" also being part of the cause of the war that made Britain want to get tax money that made the colonies revolt. The first time I learned about the Seven Years War in school, I looked up the Battle at Roßbach and was completely baffled by this lopsided victory. The French and their allies just got hosed. 3000 dead, 7000 captured. The Prussian losses were 548 dead and wounded. And the Prussians only had like half their enemy's troop strength. The French really didn't like this outcome. It also royally hosed their strategic planning for Germany, because afterwards every German force they tried to build just suffered nearly titanic levels of desertion. (It also really didn't help the catholic French that they were mostly recruiting German protestants to fight the protestant Prussians.) It took the French until Napoleon to invade Germany that deep again. Anyway, the Battle of Roßbach for some reason made people in Britain and North America go apeshit with (what my translation website calls) flush of victory: They idolized Frederic II. more than we Germans ever did. So it's kind of funny how fast that celebrity status must have disappeared if the European part of the war gets hardly a mention in the US of today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
The Seven Years War is the real World War 1 in my opinion
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
500 posts to read? Jesus Christ! Anyways, I have a question about stupid wargame poo poo. In A Fistful of TOWs, probably the grognardiest Cold War-to-Modern game, they still have Soviet batallion sized units going against Western companies, with justification that goes like this: FFoT3 posted:But . . . the Soviet Army also had serious systemic defciencies that could not help but reduce combat effectiveness. It was a conscript army that lacked a long-term professional NCO corps. Despite the prestige among the Soviet society as a whole, military service was terribly unpopular among the conscripts themselves. Conditions among the enlisted men were bad—poor quality food, terrible living conditions and barbaric hazing. Alcoholism and corruption was rampant among both enlisted personnel and ofcers. Soviet regiments had to operate fairly sophisticated agricultural enterprises to keep their troops fed, which necessarily compromised operational readiness. To maximize the number of combat units, the Soviets skimped on logistics and command/control. For instance, an American battalion commander had morecommand and control assets than a Soviet regimental commander I mean, how true/untrue/Asiatic hordes is this assessment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
I don't have any idea how it relates to a game but it is absolutely accurate to say the Cold War Soviet army had very serious problems with lower and mid-level leadership. Professional noncommissioned officers were basically nonexistent and most career officers were as much party members as military men, so small unit leadership was generally a really rough go. When Russia started remodeling at military at the start of the new millennium that was the first place they looked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Didn't the Soviets have trouble trying to retain experienced NCO's too? Also, that game has an awkward name. You'd need really big hands to do that.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Liberty Prime is a secret unit in the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Seven Years War is the real World War 1 in my opinion anyway, caravaggio is in the news again  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/05/11/caravaggio-virtuoso-of-compassion/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:ahem It's not a world war if it's all on one continent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
s.Pz.Haub.18/1 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.III/IV (sf) (sd.Kfz.165) or Hummel to casuals. Queue: E-50 and E-75, LT vz. 38, Pz38(t), Allied fictional tanks, crazy Soviet tanks, Hellcat trials in the USSR, Light Tank M3A3, Char B1 in German service, Renault NC, Renault D1, Renault R35, Renault D2, Renault R40, 25 mm Hotchkiss gun, LT vz 35, Praga AH-IV, Praga LTL and Pzw 39, T-60 production in difficult years, big guns for the KV-1, A1E1 Independent, PzI Ausf. B, PzI Ausf. C, PzI Ausf. F, Renault FT, Maus in the USSR, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, M4A2(76)W, PzII Ausf. a though b, PzII Ausf. c through C, PzII Ausf. D through E, PzII Ausf. F, PzII trials in the USSR Available for request:  Light Tank M5   T-37 with ShKAS Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38 SG-122 Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis 45 mm M-42 gun SU-76 prototype SU-26/T-26-6 T-60 tanks produced at Stalingrad SU-122 precursors NEW  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv 81 and Strv 101 Swedish tanks 1928–1934 NEW  Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR 37 mm anti-tank gun   Pak 97/38 7.5 cm Pak 41 s.FH. 18 
Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:It's not a world war if it's all on one continent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:does sweden's thing with muscovy during the 30yw count as asia Did they pass through Finland?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Did they pass through Finland?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:On the basis of "OK this one isn't that bad I guess" or via "OK this piece is hopelessly out of tolerance but this other component is also out of tolerance and they should probably hopefully work together" ? Mostly just rummaging through the reject piles until they found pieces that would work together. Remember, most of the guns involved featured a fair bit of hand fitting to get everything to work together, which is why all parts on German guns were numbered. Now, it wasn't ENTIRELY hopeless - these weren't purely bespoke firearms and frequently parts off different guns would be drop-in fits. Still, when you're talking about raiding the reject bin a file and some patience is part of the routine. Some were also rejected for things that were later decided to be unimportant. G/K43 receivers is a good example. Early on they would reject if the scope rail was out of tolerance, but later on they gave up on the idea of making every gun able to take a scope and started milling off the rails on new guns so the parts rejected for wonky rails suddenly became a lot more attractive. aphid_licker posted:How have those not been long thrown into a blast furnace as scrap by that point? The factories involved would hang onto them in the hopes that they could re-work them later. We're talking about big factory complexes - a few rooms for storage of out of spec parts isn't that big a deal, and no one's going to be recovering enough metal from scrapping them to make it worthwhile. Fangz posted:Quality control in those factories using slave labour is just a weird thing to think about. Would they murder workers who produce too many rejected parts? Most of the factories involved didn't use slave labor. That said, QC at the handful that did was always notoriously poo poo. It's one of the reasons the Germans never rebuilt the G/K43 line at Buchenwald after it got destroyed in a bombing raid - the guns coming out of it were so frequently poo poo that it wasn't worth wasting the resources to get it up and running again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:s.Pz.Haub.18/1 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw.III/IV (sf) (sd.Kfz.165) or Hummel to casuals. Curious about the Pz II reports, especially what the soviets made of it. It's always been a weird mix of a good tank and an interwar "I have no idea what I'm doing" tank in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I mean, how true/untrue/Asiatic hordes is this assessment? I can't comment on the rest of it, but I do remember hearing stuff to the effect that the Soviets generally focused on simple, easy to carry out (and importantly quick to carry out) drills at the tactical level for a number of reasons (including language barriers). The assumption was that a lower level (i.e. tactical) commander could "string" them together to carry out more complex manoeuvres. Though the Soviet command structure was more centralised than its Western equivalents, a Soviet commander wasn't necessarily a rigid one. It may also be worth noting that while the Soviets did take inspiration from their experiences during WW2, most of that was drawing upon their experiences of the late war mechanised offensives, which were breathtaking in their speed and ferocity. Take all of that with a huge heaping of salt though because I'm going off hearsay, half-remembered articles, and what I can recall from reading FM 100-2-1 because I am a tremendous loving sperg (if not a necessarily well informed sperg). In other words, wait for someone to tell me I'm full of poo poo before you take what I say at face value.  e: Training was a bit of an issue, if I recall right - for example, tank crews fired a limited number of live rounds during training compared to what Western armour crews enjoyed. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I can't comment on the rest of it, but I do remember hearing stuff to the effect that the Soviets generally focused on simple, easy to carry out (and importantly quick to carry out) drills at the tactical level for a number of reasons (including language barriers). The assumption was that a lower level commander could "string" them together to carry out more complex manoeuvres. Though the Soviet command structure was more centralised than its Western equivalents, a Soviet commander wasn't necessarily a rigid one. It may also be worth noting that while the Soviets did take inspiration from their experiences during WW2, most of that was drawing upon their experiences of the late war mechanised offensives, which were breathtaking in their speed and ferocity. Take all of that with a huge heaping of salt though because I'm going off hearsay, half-remembered articles, and what I can recall from reading FM 100-2-1 because I am a tremendous loving sperg (if not a necessarily well informed sperg). In other words, wait for someone to tell me I'm full of poo poo before you take what I say at face value. I think the gist is that tactical decisions and support capabilities in the Soviet organization happened one level up than in their NATO equivalents. Which you could spin as "their low level officers aren't as smart and independent as ours!" or the much scarier, "they are set up this way so they can get a whole division reorientated on a new axis in the time it takes us to do the same with a regiment."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I think the gist is that tactical decisions and support capabilities in the Soviet organization happened one level up than in their NATO equivalents. Which you could spin as "their low level officers aren't as smart and independent as ours!" or the much scarier, "they are set up this way so they can get a whole division reorientated on a new axis in the time it takes us to do the same with a regiment." This lines up with what I know - it's also worth noting that at least going by doctrine the Soviets were big on building extremely lopsided force ratios (what they called the "correlation of forces") in critical sectors whilst potentially letting less important areas make do with much, much less. They also stressed attempting to pin down potential reinforcements from other sectors with smaller diversionary/supporting attacks. Thus (to use a simplistic example) in a key sector it wasn't going to be just a single NATO unit against a single Soviet equivalent, but rather a single NATO unit going up against several Soviet equivalents, potentially with only limited opportunity for adjacent units to reinforce them if things started getting hairy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Also sending s battalion to take on a company frontally is military strategy 101.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Loads of strategy games let you play as the nazis. From War in the East to Silent Storm, and so on. There's a bunch that only let you play as nazis, in fact. It's only the big budget FPS subgenre where I can't really think of any notable examples - and the reason there is probably obvious. You'd either make a game that is like CoD:MW2's No Russian level except for 10 hours, or make a game that implicitly does the Clean Wehrmacht bullshit. No one will chuck substantial money at that. Silent Hunter lets you commit war crimes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
JcDent posted:500 posts to read? Jesus Christ! I've read most of The Bear Went Over the Mountain, and taking generalizations from that, I'd say there's a lot of truth in most of that, at least by the 1980s. In Afghanistan, the fact of short term conscripts with poor training was hugely problematic and the Soviets routinely suffered defeats or were rendered ineffective despite having huge local numerical advantages. The quality of officers also seems to have been massively variable, but the Soviets had a fascinating way of dealing with that. A good commander would select the best officer for a role, so you'd have a lieutenant in charge of a battalion because the man was better for the job. Apparently rank was flexible for the Soviets in a way it just never has been for the US, and these ad hoc commands didn't even come with a pro forma promotion to make it seem more legit. Political interference probably led to a lot of problems with bad officers gaining promotion, which I suspect delegitimized the respect for rank that allowed this flexibility. This contrasts with dogmatic adherence to doctrine that repeatedly shot them in the foot. For example, because the manual said to, they'd have a formal review of all the soldiers in a regiment to check equipment and uniforms 3 days before an operation began, which conveniently signaled to the mujahideen that something major was about to take place. Later in the conflict they learned to stop doing this or to game it to their advantage. They also seemed to use preparatory artillery as a matter of doctrine rather than because it was a good idea or because it was effective, which seems was rarely the case. They'd shell a village for 20 minutes before sweeping it even though the fighters were all in the hills because they had word the Soviets were coming, so all this did was alienate the locals. It took a long time for commanders to learn how to use reconnaissance and they seemed often to employ these special assets as regular troops because they were higher quality. There are accounts of officers using their recon as a blocking force because they can actually fight, but then the sweeping force gets ambushed and takes 8 hours longer to maneuver than planed and the enemy all escape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The fighting in America over the seven years' war also started because of a territorial dispute with a French fort being attacked by a colonial British force led by a certain George Washington. It blew my mind when I read about that while flipping through my high school history textbook, and I'm surprised that nobody ever brings that up, because it makes a nice little circular story of the "father of our country" also being part of the cause of the war that made Britain want to get tax money that made the colonies revolt. Wikipedia posted:In 1758, Washington participated in the Forbes Expedition to capture Fort Duquesne. He was embarrassed by a friendly fire episode in which his unit and another British unit each thought that the other was the French enemy and opened fire, with 14 dead and 26 wounded in the mishap. Washington was not involved in any other major fighting on the expedition, and the British scored a major strategic victory, gaining control of the Ohio Valley when the French abandoned the fort. Following the expedition, he retired from his Virginia Regiment commission in December 1758. He did not return to military life until the outbreak of the revolution in 1775. The best general ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Pretty much anyone will tell you Washington was an average-at-best battlefield commander, and got his rear end kicked whenever he tried to face the British in a stand-up fight. His real talent was simply being able to keep the army together as a cohesive fighting force, and being able to hit and harass the British forces without getting pinned down and eradicated in response. (It was a near thing, though-had Washington not been able up slip his entire army away during the Battle of New York under the cover of heavy fog, there's a good chance we'd all be speaking English today)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
His main qualification for the job was hanging around the continental congress in a military uniform, and then after that, one of his biggest contributions to the country was to give the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution legitimacy, but being president was too much of a hassle, and he just wanted to retire to his plantation and stacks of money. Then it turned out that wanting to quit and retire by itself was a huge contribution to the country, because that paved the way for future transfers of power where other young governments sometimes get sidetracked into weird dictatorships with unclear lines of succession. Washington's lack of ambition saved the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Me, I think we should go back to naming wars after flowers Tbh, a fair bit of my dudes military developments are mushroom-based. Allegedly the best sources for the development of berserkers are mushrooms( either amanita or psilocybe) and/or magic powers learned from having Bear as a totem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 11:16
|
|
