|
he's more famous e: what a remarkably lovely post for a new page. sorry, milhist thread!
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Re: Armour weight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CUfkGLB48
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:ethnic nationalism is all about being able to rapidly switch between 1) demanding all territory where any member of your group has ever lived 2) freaking out because that territory contains a bunch of people who aren't in your group Which leads to the obvious solution of 'take that territory, kick out everyone who isn't your group'. See: Cyprus, the Balkans, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh they're The Worst, at least the leaders are. Having said that, if my ancestors had wanted me to give a rat's rear end about it they would've stayed in County Somethingorother. As it is all I've inherited from them is a vague sense of Catholic identity and a fondness for stout beer and redheads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:OK, now I'm rabidly angry. Jeb Bush 2012 posted:as someone from a catholic irish-american family I am way more mad about IRA sympathisers (although to be clear the orange order and the DUP etc. can all go gently caress themselves too) I've put in a good word for you two down the passport office if you feel the need to escape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Which leads to the obvious solution of 'take that territory, kick out everyone who isn't your group'. See: Cyprus, the Balkans, etc, etc. Those trains? Don't worry, we're just resettling them all to the east.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
I have a nice "concise guide to British aircraft of World War Two", and the American and Axis equivalents, from Hamlyn, which go through (virtually) every plane that was flown in the war, from transports to strat bombers, all rather nicely illustrated. The only thing missing from a collection of pointlessly encyclopaedic "concise" guides is a soviet one. Can anyone recommend something that goes through the planes themselves, rather than the soviet airforce or experiences or anything like that? Just the planes, nice pictures a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Those trains? Don't worry, we're just resettling them all to the east. No I heard it was a "sightseeing tour". Mysteriously one-way though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:No I heard it was a "sightseeing tour". Mysteriously one-way though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Hey Trin, is there a good book that puts focus on the Cardwell reforms as a whole? I know the basics but there seems to be so much involved I always just get the crib notes version before the other books just move on from it. It's frustrating!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:No, it's a return trip. There are just a lot of sights to see. It says right here, "walking tour of Siberia". That must be what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXQdkVvvLU New movie about the Indian Wars starring Christian Bale. Funny thing about the extermination of the indigenous population, it's only the second most hosed up thing the US has ever done. Also whenever goons go on their "gently caress the South Sherman Rules" circlejerks they should look up his role in that atrocity. quote:Sherman wrote that "hostile savages like Sitting Bull and his band of outlaw Sioux ... must feel the superior power of the Government." He further wrote that "during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." zoux fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Nobody ever seems to take ethnic nationalism to mean 'therefore we need to vacate this area and let these people have it'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXQdkVvvLU March to the Sea is still a net positive though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Nobody ever seems to take ethnic nationalism to mean 'therefore we need to vacate this area and let these people have it'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The British with regard to Israel? My take on that was that Britain saw what a clusterfuck the situation with the holy land was becoming and just shifted the responsibility to the United Nations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The British with regard to Israel? Is it true, as I've often heard, that the big impetus for the former Allies backing the formation of a Jewish home state is that they didn't want millions of Jewish refugees flooding their countries?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Guys... the joke is that it doesn't help then either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:My take on that was that Britain saw what a clusterfuck the situation with the holy land was becoming and just shifted the responsibility to the United Nations. The Palestinian revolt of 33-39, then the Proto-Israeli insurgency of 39-48, then an obviously impending civil war, makes sense that the prevailing attitude to the mandate became: "You know what? We've just had the poo poo kicked out of us for six years, this is the least important bit of the empire, let's get the gently caress out"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I have a nice "concise guide to British aircraft of World War Two", and the American and Axis equivalents, from Hamlyn, which go through (virtually) every plane that was flown in the war, from transports to strat bombers, all rather nicely illustrated. You should check out "Soviet Combat Aircraft of World War 2" There are two volumes, and unfortunately it does not cover non-combat in any way. The first volume is for fighters, second is for bombers. One of the few books I know that talks about the Yer-2 at any length. There's also Bill Gunston's "Aircraft of the Soviet Union" but I don't know how in-depth it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
lenoon posted:The Palestinian revolt of 33-39, then the Proto-Israeli insurgency of 39-48, then an obviously impending civil war, makes sense that the prevailing attitude to the mandate became: Also, it was a League of Nations Mandate, i.e. not actually part of the Empire at all, technically (and indeed the UN as the successor of the League of Nations was responsible). No way the UK would have been allowed to keep them much longer regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Can't help but feel that prior to 1939 a League of Nations mandate was the worlds most nominal restriction on permanent territorial expansion, but yeah I agree with you there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Hey Trin, is there a good book that puts focus on the Cardwell reforms as a whole? I know the basics but there seems to be so much involved I always just get the crib notes version before the other books just move on from it. It's frustrating! As far as I know, which isn't far, it's always been a subject shallow enough for articles, and not entire books. edit, while reversing at about 10 backpedals per minute: after further research, the work you are looking for is very probably "Lord Cardwell at the War Office", written by Sir Robert Biddulph and published in 1904. (Insert standard disclaimers for referring to a 110-year-old history book here.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I'll look into that, and a shame really. I find the transition of the British army through the whole 19th century fascinating and it seems sort of weird there isn't a collective work looking at it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:13
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'll look into that, and a shame really. I find the transition of the British army through the whole 19th century fascinating and it seems sort of weird there isn't a collective work looking at it. It's probably partly because almost who studies 19th century Britain is focused on 1780-1830 or 1830 to 1885 or so.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:My mistake. I was thinking of Voltigeurs who were supposed to be small enough to ride into battle as a second person on a horse. So, an early example of the parasite fighter doctrine then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 19:23
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's probably partly because almost who studies 19th century Britain is focused on 1780-1830 or 1830 to 1885 or so. Which I understand because trying to cover everything with the my countries weird little army and it's history in one go would be the biggest head ache.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Watched this good Nat-Geo documentary about American Generals. I think it is worth a view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Keqfa7m0Wig Has a lot of candid interviews with men like Petraeus, McChrystal, and Powell on everything from the Vietnam War to Afghanistan. General Jack Keane, Patreus, and Colin Powell not so subtly blamed Paul Bremer for the beginning of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. General Barry McCaffrey pointed his finger squarely at Rumsfeld going so far to say he had a particular hatred for what he did. I honestly love watching this kind of professional slapfight, although admittedly its funnier when its old mustachioed professors fighting over who gets to name a sauropod rather than whose responsible for thousands of deaths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Speaking of generals, the more you read about Garnet Wolseley the more you are just stunned at what a snobby massive egotistic prick he was outside his career. Dude checks all the late Victorian era stereotype boxes. He's the Bono of British generals.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
I posted a Martin Luther Playmobil miniature on Destructoid and someone commented about his views on Jews. I'm a bit more lenient about historical persons not being perfect paragons, and you can always acknowledge that. So Sherman is OK in my book. Super handsome, too. By the way, I like the juxtaposition between Sherman and other generals going "war is hell" and people like Antoine Carton de Viart who are like "war is loving amazing." Has anyone read his memoirs Happy Odysey? Even less related: what are the innacuracies to look out for in Ivan's War? And a total Jc question: how did T-55 compare to other contemporary tanks in action?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Compared to its peers, the T-55 was a hell of a lot better than the M48 Patton and Centurion. T-55 had a bigger gun than either until the L7 Centurions came about, better armour protection and was reliable. There is a reason why the T-55 still is getting some development and improvement to this day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
I just get this feeling that Soviet hardware is presented as underperforming whenever its performance mentioned online and and I can't wrap my head around the idea that Soviet union continuously produced inferior stuff, yet somehow Cold war lasted for 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Part of it is that a) you, as a member of the decadent West, are likely looking at primarily western sources and b) people like to WoT featureless plain battle where I am Dueling My Opponent In Honorable combat where quantity doesn't matter and slight qualitative advantages are seen as a big deal. Soviet doctrine generally preferred more of at a slightly lower quality. You're going to advance to contact, reinforce success very heavily (like sequencing division level formations to exploit a small gap), and take casualties. This article gets kicked around a lot, overstates some stuff but in general is an interesting look. https://20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/why-cold-war-warsaw-pact-tactics-work-in-wargaming/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I just get this feeling that Soviet hardware is presented as underperforming whenever its performance mentioned online and and I can't wrap my head around the idea that Soviet union continuously produced inferior stuff, yet somehow Cold war lasted for 50 years. Keep in mind, during the Cold War analysts constantly overestimated Soviet capabilities, to the point that the CIA's Team B started using the logic of "Well if there's no evidence they have a new super-submarine, this must mean they have a new super-submarine and they're hiding it" to argue for additional defense budget increases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I posted a Martin Luther Playmobil miniature on Destructoid and someone commented about his views on Jews. I'm a bit more lenient about historical persons not being perfect paragons, and you can always acknowledge that. So Sherman is OK in my book. Though it was really small inside. Really, really small. Like the height limit was 5'5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I just get this feeling that Soviet hardware is presented as underperforming whenever its performance mentioned online and and I can't wrap my head around the idea that Soviet union continuously produced inferior stuff, yet somehow Cold war lasted for 50 years. Western armies shat themselves over the IS-3, and tank destroyers were made to deal with it specifically. By that point, the IS-3 was old news, and the Soviets were working on crazy poo poo like the IS-7 and less crazy poo poo like the IS-8, before finally admitting that heavy tanks are dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Yeah, but when you start reading about conflicts, I seems that everything that Soviets produced gets clowned, from missiles to tanks and planes. Probably only RPG-7 escapes unscathed. I think some goon posted a test that shows that AKs are actually not better than M16s when thrown in mud and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
The quality of the guys driving the tank and the guys commanding the tank and the C4I supporting the tank in the field and the airpower and ADA defending and supporting the tank and the coordination of artillery fires and infantry to accompany the tank is all a shitload more important to the outcome of a modern battlefield than the quality of the tank itself. You could give the Coalition T55s in GW1 and provided they had the same thermals and equipment, commo gear and battlefield support they would have rolled the Iraqi army in a similar way. edit: a more accurate read of the result is that Soviet client states get clowned, not that Warpac gear is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Well, maybe that's the case. Would be nice to see such a scenario of mixing low tech hardware with high tech accessories and well trained military against midtech hardware controlled by a middling army.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
The various Arab-Israeli wars? Jordan had basically the same Western kit as the Israelis in the first one at least and they kind of still got clowned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:36
|
|