|
Nebakenezzer posted:Somewhere among my posts in the Aviation thread, I posted a 1944 American propaganda film on the P-47. It was filmed in Sardinia, and showed P-47 pilots machine gunning things in the countryside that looked suspicious. I don't know which one that was, but I just tripped on this, of all the things I could find. quote:Somebody in that field. Don't know who they are. No friends of mine. <machine guns>
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Regarding strafing runs, I could understand if a farmer got strafed because his car on the road was targeted but attacking cows in the field or an obvious civilian farm seems unlikely. Let's not forget that for all of their reputation for being mechanized a lot of the Wehrmacht was reliant on horse drawn wagons for transport and logistics... So a fighter pilot seeing a guy with a horse and thinking "it's a target" doesn't sound impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Wait, are you allowed to shoot uniformed medics? Ambulances and medics that are marked with a red cross or crescent are supposed to be off limits. That being said, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Daesh, and the Taliban don't care about that and will shoot at Medevac. If it's just normal troops performing medical aid, then yes, they are fair game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I don't know which one that was, but I just tripped on this, of all the things I could find. Anyone who runs is a Wehrmacht. Anyone who stands still is a clean Wehrmacht
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It was a mistake in hindsight to bring up that video because it's politically really touchy. The part that you're not getting is the insurgent is always someone's dad or brother or cousin. Even if the guy you kill is 100% a combatant, they are still tied into the local populace, so if you kill him you're still creating more insurgents. This is why COIN is hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:The part that you're not getting is the insurgent is always someone's dad or brother or cousin. Even if the guy you kill is 100% a combatant, they are still tied into the local populace, so if you kill him you're still creating more insurgents. This just emphasizes even harder why the "double tap" doctrine was stupid. You can perhaps argue for permissive RoE in a combat environment where troops are under threat, but when it comes to killing first responders and wounded people who are obviously not an immediate threat the situation is very different. It's not Battlefield, a guy you just gunned down with a 30 cal (or whatever) is not going to get hit with a defibrillator, get back up and start shooting again. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
You can always just kill everyone, of course, and it does work if you have a strong enough force and are efficient at doing it quickly and ruthlessly enough while censoring information about it in order to create a fait accompli before a response of any kind can be adequately mustered. There may or may not be certain consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
my dad posted:You can always just kill everyone, of course, and it does work if you have a strong enough force and are efficient at doing it quickly and ruthlessly enough while censoring information about it in order to create a fait accompli before a response of any kind can be adequately mustered. Yes, the US occupation of Iraq was the same as the Holocaust. Bravo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Yes, the US occupation of Iraq was the same as the Holocaust. Bravo. Good to know that men like you are keeping peace around the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
my dad posted:Good to know that men like you are keeping peace around the world. What is a man like me? Give some descriptors here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Being pretty disingenuous about what you're replying to, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Being pretty disingenuous about what you're replying to, among other things. What was he referencing then? Serbian policy in the 90s?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Touchy idiots
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:What was he referencing then? Serbian policy in the 90s? The generalized case of shooting when in doubt, which is something we have literally covered on this very page as being distinct from the Holocaust?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I don't know which one that was, but I just tripped on this, of all the things I could find. Haha, this is it! Is that a farmhouse - OR A ENEMY HQ [machine guns]
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, the battalion is holding the line... by thinly spreading out about a company's worth of platoons? The front line at that place and time wasn't one of those well built and organised trenches that are in all the films, but just a series of shell holes that were in the process of being improved, so there wouldn't have really been the space for a full company forward. Wouldn't be surprised that because the conditions were so poor that they rotated the men within the company, some up and some a bit further back near company H.Q. (And I had to stop myself writing Company with a capital C there!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Haha, this is it! Is that a farmhouse - OR A ENEMY HQ [machine guns] Noooope. How 'bout this one? Noooope. ... Maybe this one. Nooo<kabooooom!> This is some black humor, so I countered it by bumming myself at the idea of visiting my neighbor down the road and finding they all got machine-gunned inside their house. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
I feel like really the only proper response to reading about wars is deciding that they are invariably a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like really the only proper response to reading about wars is deciding that they are invariably a terrible idea. Speaking of terrible ideas, I'm assuming at this point that this whole story about Hershey's adding wax to their chocolate during and after WW2 is a bunch of bullshit. Then again, I'm not sure anybody would know. I do give some credence to beer tasting so meh based on the one-two punch of prohibition and then the war causing breweries to make weaker beer from whatever was free to ferment. I also understand that we can blame most of the center of a US supermarket--and possibly the whole supermarket concept itself, and our sugar-addled fat American asses--on food preservation practices that were discovered and refined during WW2. I think people have a hard time with cacao not actually being the limiting factor in the chocolate production. It's not like they were making bullets out of it****. But all the milk and sugar were going to get gobbled right up. Hell, I would suspect the much-maligned wax was probably in higher demand for other things too. **** 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Speaking of terrible ideas, I'm assuming at this point that this whole story about Hershey's adding wax to their chocolate during and after WW2 is a bunch of bullshit. Then again, I'm not sure anybody would know. I have no idea of Hershey's hosed with their WW2 recipie, but it's a thing that happened in some countries in Europe. Switzerland in particular was in the odd position of not being a combatant but having their international trade utterly hosed with because they depended on getting goods out of ports that were now all in the hands of the Axis and subject to allied blockade. So they didn't need to go full war economy and could still produce luxury items, but they were still having to ration like everyone else. I'm blanking on the name right now, but one brand of swiss chocolate bars in particular started putting air holes and crunchy filler crap in to stretch the chocolate ration, and it ended up being delicious as gently caress. That "wartime" recipe stuck around and is still sold today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
I’d imagine shipping for non-essentials like cacao was a pretty limited commodity...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I’d imagine shipping for non-essentials like cacao was a pretty limited commodity... Dairy was also big problem IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
One time when I was researching KG 40, (German naval bomber formation that operated the Fw 200) I found one of these Chinese shirt-making sites offering to put the logo of KG 40 on baby clothes e: Somebody made a post on the Lockheed Hudson/Ventura bomber series and it is excellent. It's nice to read about airliners into warplanes and it not be the Nazis. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I’d imagine shipping for non-essentials like cacao was a pretty limited commodity... I'm definitely pulling out of my rear end here, but I'm going to reason that is true, but the other ingredients that could step in to stretch the chocolate are under further strain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like really the only proper response to reading about wars is deciding that they are invariably a terrible idea. I'm reading Bruce Catton right now, and he had this to say. quote:..…it expressed the deep inner feeling of the boys who had gone to war so blithely in an age when no one would speak the truth about the reality of war: war is tragedy, it is better to live than to die, young men who go down to dusty death in battle have been horribly tricked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:I'm reading Bruce Catton right now, and he had this to say. As far as music along the same theme goes, I heard Luang Prabang by Dave van Ronk maybe 2 years ago and I’ve sort of generally had chills ever since https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JlDn9WCw The funny thing is that if you played it to a crowd of stupid people you could probably convince them it’s a pro war song, kind of like born in the USA
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Whoever illustrated this book must have just googled "Russian on a horse" and stuck in the first photo he found, because WOW
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I doubt there is any real record. If there is anything his post flight report probably has “strafed targets of opportunity over the area of Nearest Big City while returning to base” Uh. . . I'm not going to compare their activities to NAZIs, but the crimes of the Contras and Sandinistas were absolutely not on par. Contras were responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties. They were so bad even rabidly anti-Sandinista papers produced by the American military struggled to depict them in anything approaching a positive light. Sandinista Counterinsurgency tactics, by JAMES M. MCCARL, JR., MAJ, USA, 1990 posted:Contra goals centered on regaining control of Nicaragua, if not simple vengeance against the Sandinistas. For this reason, it is not clear if the Contra leadership shared the larger Argentine vision. However, in return for military support, the September 15 Legion became a temporary instrument of the Argentine government. As an illustration, Contra personnel were used to attack a radio station in Costa Rica that consistently broadcasted material attacking the Argentine government. This is a charitable description. Basically, they continued the tactics many of the Contras had learned in the Nicaraguan National Guard and employed similarly by the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala. The objective of operations was to terrorize the rural peasants into submission to Contra leadership and political inactivity. Unsurprisingly it failed to earn them much popular support. With the Reagan era came large scale American financial and military aid for the Contras, and under American tutelage they developed more sophisticated tactics. From 1982 the primary objective of most Contra operations would be the destruction of the rural economy. While they attacked all infrastructure, two of their primary targets were storehouses for coffee and grain. It at first struck me as extremely paradoxical that an insurgent would target the peasants grain of all things in an effort to gain support, but it has a certain kind of logic. Supplied almost entirely by foreign sponsors, the Contras were completely independent of the Nicaraguan economy. The more the Nicaraguan economy decayed the more enticing it became to join their movement. Paired with the economic attack came an even more indiscriminate terror campaign against the rural population. By contrast the Sandinista government, though far from clean, was responsible for a small proportion of attacks against civilians. There is evidence of war crimes on their side, however it was much less systematic and the crimes committed were concentrated in two circumstances. The first set of war crimes occurred during their initial seizure of power from the Somoza regime in the 1979 mass uprising. Following a general strike, a mass uprising by all segments of the Nicaraguan population led by a small number of Sandinista cadres tore down the government and targeted Somoza's National Guard for bloody reprisals. It's hard to express just how hated Somoza and the National Guard were by the average citizen. Somoza ruled the country like a private plantation while the National Guard enforced order more like an occupying army, killing and torturing regime opponents at will and dumping their bodies in the streets. The CIA in Reagan administration public releases estimated up to 2,000 National Guard were killed in summary executions during and in the weeks following Somoza's fall. Many of these trial-less executions were probably tacitly tolerated or even encouraged by the Sandinista leadership. The second predominant set of Sandinista war crimes occurred during the forced movement of rural residents in Contra affected areas to "strategic villages," or as the Sandinistas put it, collective farms. This engendered a fair amount of resentment, especially among the Miskito Indians of the Atlantic coast. The Miskito were the only Nicaraguans to mount an internal popular insurgency against the Sandinistas. Driven primarily by suspicion of all state authority, exacerbated by half-fisted outreach by the overwhelmingly Mestizo Sandinistas, the Miskito launched a serious rebellion against the government in 1982. In response the Sandistas aggressively relocated the population, burning and mining towns on the way out and committing a number of human rights violations in the process, including rounding up and murdering suspected insurgents or killing random civilians just for revenge. However it's worth pointing out this operation was relatively small in scale, compared to other theatres of the war. Probably most of the crimes were an unintentional product of the counter-insurgency, as many of the Sandinista forces were relatively poorly disciplined militia/reservists. This is not to exculpate the Sandinistas, who were largely responsible for antagonizing the indigenous community in the first place and several of their leadership later wrote of regretting the affair. This went longer than I intended, but I just wanted it to be clear theirs a real difference in the kinds of crimes committed by both sides. The Contras followed a policy explicitly based around attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure with the goal of impoverishing the rural peasants and killing anyone who had any connection to the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas murdered many members of the National Guard, and their campaign against the Miskito devolved into the kind of gross human rights violations characteristic of so many counter-insurgencies. However they never followed a policy of intentionally attacking civilians, and were always supported by the vast majority of the rural peasants who were also the majority of victims in the war.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Dairy was also big problem IIRC. Yeah what with all these sadistic bastards strafing the cows
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Whoever illustrated this book must have just googled "Russian on a horse" and stuck in the first photo he found, because WOW Could you spell it out for me(a moron)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
TaurusTorus posted:Could you spell it out for me(a moron)? That's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Budyonny In (I believe) uniform as a Marshall of the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
How's Dan Jones as a historian? He got interviewed on Tides of History and his book on the Templars sounds neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 14th Dec 1917 posted:Two very good reconnaisances were carried out by 2/Lt. DOW and 11 O.R. and 2/Lt. CAMPBELL. 2/Lt. BOL-TON also took out a small patrol of 2 O.R. to reconnoitre wire in front of his post, and enemy wire on road running S.E. to DAMP COPSE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Question for HeyGal or I guess anyone else, What exactly was a Provost-Marshall in an like the 30 years war time period and how important were they? It sounds somewhat important, but what exactly are they supposed to do? I saw on Wikipedia a couple confusing statements one said the role was logistics and another said it is military police related although I am not sure if that is a modern evolution of the role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
TaurusTorus posted:Could you spell it out for me(a moron)? Fangs got it. Not only is it Budyonniy, he's waving around a Red Banner with the words "proletariat of the world unite" on it, making it rather clear that it's not early WWI anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:he's waving around a Red Banner with the words "proletariat of the world unite" on it
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
mods rename me MOAT FARM tia
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the hell does he plan to do with it, i see no socket on his tack gives it to one of his aides indubitably marshal dont carry no flag
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Napoleon mentioned a baton not a standard.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:15
|
|
