|
SeanBeansShako posted:My dad (pushing towards sixty) who is a former serviceman always talks about the Bren with a wry smile and bemused tone. Apparently according to him it wasn't a bad little gun, he still finds it's weird accuracy for it's role amusing in the present day. What struck soldiers as odd about the Bren is that, in real world application, it didn't need to be that accurate. A less accurate gun would have worked just about as well in that role. So why did they spend the effort and expense to dial it in that tightly, why not spend that somewhere else where it would have greater impact? It seems odd because broader experience suggests a bad cost/benefit analysis happening, that someone in the Bren factory is wasting time on getting the guns to that accuracy level that could have been better spent on turning out more Brens faster. But the truth is that they didn't spend excessive effort on dialing the Bren in, it's just really well designed, and its accuracy is a byproduct of that and QA to keep other performance metrics within acceptable bounds. It is, essentially, a freebie that the UK was very happy to take advantage of. The flip side of the myth is something like the SVD, which is often derided as woefully inaccurate for a marksman's rifle. This myth is overstated - the SVD is pretty drat accurate regardless of how you want to slice it. But it is true that it's not as accurate as it could be. And this is where you come to the same place from the other direction. The SVD is more than accurate enough to accomplish its role, and making it more accurate requires a lot more effort compared to the benefits of keeping production costs low or turning more out in a given amount of time. This is the usual pattern that makes the Bren seem slightly off. So the bemusement of soldiers about the Bren is reasonable, but ultimately mistaken and driven by incomplete information. That runs into a more fundamental error in the broader culture about assessing accuracy in military arms, and the result is a just-so story that confirms initial prejudices.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:And this is where you come to the same place from the other direction. The SVD is more than accurate enough to accomplish its role, and making it more accurate requires a lot more effort compared to the benefits of keeping production costs low or turning more out in a given amount of time. This is the usual pattern that makes the Bren seem slightly off. I'm wondering if the "inaccurate SVD" myth may have stemmed from it being analyzed by people who are used to the idea of snipers as making precision shots at long range, whereas the SVD was designed for a designated marksman role that didn't really exist in most tactical thinking of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I always wonder how realistic 'walking fire' is. I would not want to walk towards an enemy trenchline, LMG carrying or not. The idea is that you follow hot on the heels of your rolling artillery barrage and start laying down fire before the enemy realises "oh poo poo this one's for realsies" and gets back up out of their nice deep dugouts and into the MG nests and up on the fire-step. When everything goes right, there's plenty of personal accounts about successfully getting men to all the entrances of a dugout before anyone could get out, and thus being able to politely invite the inhabitants to surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Still trash, still publishing op eds in major newspapers to their eternal discredit. Oh, it goes a bit beyond that--he recently got in the news for conspiring with conservative student groups to swing campus elections by encouraging them to harass the left-leaning candidates on the justification that anything done was in the name of ~~protecting the West.~~ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/1/17417042/niall-ferguson-stanford-emails
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The idea is that you follow hot on the heels of your rolling artillery barrage and start laying down fire before the enemy realises "oh poo poo this one's for realsies" and gets back up out of their nice deep dugouts and into the MG nests and up on the fire-step. When everything goes right, there's plenty of personal accounts about successfully getting men to all the entrances of a dugout before anyone could get out, and thus being able to politely invite the inhabitants to surrender. The degree to which I would wanna rely on everything going right in a WWI battleplan is exceedingly small.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:04
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Oh, it goes a bit beyond that--he recently got in the news for conspiring with conservative student groups to swing campus elections by encouraging them to harass the left-leaning candidates on the justification that anything done was in the name of ~~protecting the West.~~ Man just when you thought a piece of poo poo couldn't get any shittier.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The degree to which I would wanna rely on everything going right in FTFY We're better at knowing more about the enemy before we initiate a plan but actual battles add in chaos that is hard to predict.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:3. Sometimes harvests would be so poor that peasants would engage in cannibalism This happened in the Great Famine of the early 14th century. We don't talk about it much because it was eclipsed by the even greater calamity of the Black Death, but those two make the 14th century one of the worst to be a run-of-the-mill European. At least your shoes were pointy, though. Edit: To be clear, I hate the book in question with a passion for the reasons listed. He also said that money was only invented to pay soldiers (what use the soldiers had for it is left up to the reader to imagine). Also, not a Manchester thing but I have heard second hand that an art history teacher taught that medieval people were unable to see things in 3 dimensions, which is why their art looks weird. Yeah idk man Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This happened in the Great Famine of the early 14th century. We don't talk about it much because it was eclipsed by the even greater calamity of the Black Death, but those two make the 14th century one of the worst to be a run-of-the-mill European. At least your shoes were pointy, though. events like this really gently caress up the kids growing up during them - the children who went hungry would've expected to be in the prime of health during the black death. it would've been interesting to see if, or how, that could've made it even worse curse the lack of sophisticated epidemological studies in the premodern era
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This happened in the Great Famine of the early 14th century. We don't talk about it much because it was eclipsed by the even greater calamity of the Black Death, but those two make the 14th century one of the worst to be a run-of-the-mill European. At least your shoes were pointy, though. The argument from A World Lit Only By Fire is that cannibalism was a common occurrence, not a rare crime from a few times of extreme famine. Basically he claims that medieval times were filled with roving bands of naked cannibals who walked too far from the village while getting a drink and couldn't find their way back or know what time it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I would not extend the cold war tank experience to the WWII tank experience. IIRC, by modem standards those tanks were typically insanely cramped. (Edit: Well, maybe not the Sherman) To add a bit to my previous answer... Check out this Chevy truck, it's from about the same time that T-34/85 was built:  It's clearly a car. It has four wheels with rubber tires, the front two wheels steer and the back two provide power. Power comes from the piston engine, goes through a transmission, and turns the wheels. It has headlights, two doors, a bed for cargo, etc, etc... Here's a Chevy truck from 2018.  It checks all of the boxes above. Four wheels, piston engine, headlights, etc. But it's a vastly improved machine. It has all sorts of cool electronic components that dramatically improve its efficiency. It has lots of new systems that weren't even conceived of back in the 1940s, like a GPS and Bluetooth. If you're trained to work on or operate the newer truck it wouldn't take much to get you up to speed on the older version. Sure, there will be all sorts of little things that are different, but you're going to be dealing with a much simpler machine. Going the other way, if you know how to deal with the old version it will be very different when you go to the newer one. You'll probably be able to operate it on a basic level just fine - and in some ways the newer one will be even simpler. You'll have a basic understanding of the components, but when it comes to the electronic stuff - well, you'll pick up on operating it quickly, but once the box is opened up it might as well be magic. But, in fairness, that's the case with a modern crewman as well. (I doubt that I could repair laser optics on a tank, just as I doubt I could rebuild a smart phone.) I was a modern-day tank crewman and I've worked on restoring WWII tanks. The same principles apply almost exactly. If you know modern stuff it's easy to transfer that knowledge back. But when you take an older tanker and show him a newer one - again, in some ways it's even easier and the improvements are obvious, but the electronics are pure wizardry. My grandfather was a tanker in the Pacific in WWII and later in Korea. Before he died I managed to get him to visit Camp Pendleton and got permission to show him a modern M-1A1. (Even though he was former army my CO was very happy to accommodate an old veteran.) He was very impressed by the M-1A1, and picked up on what it was capable of immediately - saying things like "wish we'd had that in 1944" - but I doubt that he could have done higher-echelon repairs without a lot of training. Also, as to space to work in MOPP gear and a gas mask... If you ever get a chance to go to an open house day on a military base or a dog-and-pony show, do it. Get in that M-1A1 and sit in the driver's station. You'll find it's like sitting in a car, even if your position is different (you're more reclined). Could you sit in your car in a bulky suit and a gas mask? Of course you could. You could even drive around, although it would take a bit of time to get adjusted to doing it. Same with tanks and AFVs. WWII vehicles are roughly the same, interior space-wise, as I said above. They're probably more uncomfortable, in that ergonomics weren't as much of a consideration, but that's not making them so cramped that you can't get in them if you're wearing a bulky suit. It's more like "you're hunched over when you drive" or "you just can't get the seat adjusted correctly." It's uncomfortable and if you have to drive for hours it will hurt, but you'll survive, and you can do it with a mask without much more difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
Oh, no, is this like that "the Greeks just couldn't see blue" nonsense that was floating around a few years ago?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Cessna posted:That's primer. It'll be 4B0 green when it's done. Why change it   
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Wow, I had not seen that before... That must have taken a lot of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:and some WW2 soldiers removed their bipods to lower the weight. ah, the good ole "saw your pike shorter" and "get rid of your winter clothes during summer" because they're too heavy
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The idea is that you follow hot on the heels of your rolling artillery barrage and start laying down fire before the enemy realises "oh poo poo this one's for realsies" and gets back up out of their nice deep dugouts and into the MG nests and up on the fire-step. When everything goes right, there's plenty of personal accounts about successfully getting men to all the entrances of a dugout before anyone could get out, and thus being able to politely invite the inhabitants to surrender. One thing I've never understood about creeping barrage is if they start it are you hidden by all the explosions because you're right behind or jumping into shell holes? If there's enough space between the barrage and the enemy lines can they not see you as normal only you're stopping every few minutes? Also there are personal accounts of getting to dugouts before anyone could get out and just chucking a few bombs in, aren't there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The argument from A World Lit Only By Fire is that cannibalism was a common occurrence Ah lol i should have known. Cessna posted:Oh, no, is this like that "the Greeks just couldn't see blue" nonsense that was floating around a few years ago? Yes. Gnoman posted:Less flippantly, the arquebus is the first shoulder-fired gun, and was the first design to include a trigger. The musket was a heavier version to deal with armor. Not quite the first
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:ah, the good ole "saw your pike shorter" and "get rid of your winter clothes during summer" because they're too heavy Not quite, in this case. The soldiers removed their bipods because they intended to use the guns shooting from the hip or from the shoulder like a heavy rifle, rather than setting up prone and laying down a ton of suppressing fire like you could with a real LMG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
I've heard this theory elsewhere and it's not entirely insane. Basically you're some Sumerian God-King, the economy runs on grain based barter with gold and silver used only for high level exchanges in the temples and palaces. You've just started keeping a standing army. You now have to requisition grain from the farmers to feed the soldiers, so you've got silos, quartermasters, scribes keeping of it all, and generally a big hassle. Instead, some clever priest comes up with a scheme where you give a coin worth about a sack of grain to each soldier, and require so many coins per year from each farmer roughly equal to what you were previously claiming in grain. The soldiers now trade the coins directly to the farmers and you've vastly reduced the amount of grain you as God-king have been responsible for schlepping from the ziggurat to the barracks. Then farmers and soldiers start trading coins among themselves for whatever else they want and the money economy is born. The implication that should be noted is that this theory of the invention of money only makes sense if you put it in the context of creating government debt and a subsequent tax obligation, Modern Monetary Theory basically. Of course the soldiers soon realize coins can also be traded for alcohol and are easy to wager in games of chance. e: it's an as far as I know unconfirmed just-so story so I'm not going to argue too hard for it, but it's not naked lost peasant level absurd. P-Mack fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I've heard this theory elsewhere and it's not entirely insane. Basically you're some Sumerian God-King, the economy runs on grain based barter with gold and silver used only for high level exchanges in the temples and palaces. You've just started keeping a standing army. You now have to requisition grain from the farmers to feed the soldiers, so you've got silos, quartermasters, scribes keeping of it all, and generally a big hassle. Instead, some clever priest comes up with a scheme where you give a coin worth about a sack of grain to each soldier, and require so many coins per year from each farmer roughly equal to what you were previously claiming in grain. The soldiers now trade the coins directly to the farmers and you've vastly reduced the amount of grain you as God-king have been responsible for schlepping from the ziggurat to the barracks. Then farmers and soldiers start trading coins among themselves for whatever else they want and the money economy is born. Your theory is mostly correct, but not actually a soldier thing. Money in general was invented because barter systems are extremely inconvenient for anything but the simplest early economies (the classic "coincidence of wants" scenario). Early on you would start seeing individually valuable items like grain or livestock being traded in exchange for other items, but these are limited in shelf life and can't really be traded endlessly. But if you make tokens that can be exchanged for other items, you can simply sell something for the tokens and then use them to buy what you need. The person you sold the item to can then sell it to someone else for more tokens, which they use to buy other things. Bam, you've just invented the economy. Early currency had its value based on grain because it needed to have its value guaranteed. Before the precious metals themselves started to be valued, it was easy to guarantee their value by making them equal to a particular weight of grain. "Shekel" started as a unit of weight that was then applied to a coin equal in value to 1 shekel of barley. If you can reliably trade your coins for food at any time, it'll keep its value. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:ah, the good ole "saw your pike shorter" and "get rid of your winter clothes during summer" because they're too heavy That's why you don't issue winter clothing in the first place so that they don't throw it away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
There's not really concrete evidence as to exactly how the first currency developed. Tokens demarcating value were just one of the intermediary steps in the development of currency, and it's definitely plausible that the thing that got governments to issue uniform currency to be accepted for everybody's transactions would be to pay an army, which in the army's downtime or retirement would get traded around. Probably the barter system as it is imagined before the existence of currency is a myth. Pure barter has only been observed to happen in edge cases where the parties involved would probably never see eachother again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Planet Money had a podcast on a system of barter that aquariums use. Reputable aquariums no longer pay for fish because it encourages poaching. So they trade fish between each other. The guy they interviewed said that jellyfish have become the basic unit of exchange so he could roughly say what each species of fish is worth in jellyfish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There's not really concrete evidence as to exactly how the first currency developed. Tokens demarcating value were just one of the intermediary steps in the development of currency, and it's definitely plausible that the thing that got governments to issue uniform currency to be accepted for everybody's transactions would be to pay an army, which in the army's downtime or retirement would get traded around. Exactly, individuals weren't actually trading bags of grain on a daily basis, theyd have tabs and IOUs and verbal contracts, so the question isn't "when did money as an abstract unit of account tied to a commodity start", it's "when and why did a fungible, standardized physical token start getting used to represent that", and the government paying soldiers is a reasonable hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
i used to own some tokens from the 1840s in mexico, they're square metal pieces and one said something like "this is worth X loads of wool," it was a thing in cash-poor regions for a while we suffered from a shortage of small change until the 19th century
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Planet Money had a podcast on a system of barter that aquariums use. Reputable aquariums no longer pay for fish because it encourages poaching. So they trade fish between each other. The guy they interviewed said that jellyfish have become the basic unit of exchange so he could roughly say what each species of fish is worth in jellyfish. I'll trade you this rookie foil Lemon Shark for 2 of your near-mint Barracudas
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 10th October 1918 posted:At 0820 hours orders were received to send a billeting party to LIGNY and the Battalion to follow after them as soon as possible. The remainder of the day was spent in billets in LIGNY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:One thing I've never understood about creeping barrage is if they start it are you hidden by all the explosions because you're right behind or jumping into shell holes? If there's enough space between the barrage and the enemy lines can they not see you as normal only you're stopping every few minutes? Think of the barrage as a box, rather than a line. Every so often the leading and trailing edges of the barrage would move forward a bit. Smoke shells would be included to greater or lesser extent which would aid the obscuration of the advancing troops. The rest would usually be a mix of HE and shrapnel. Typical use of gas shells was to suppress the enemy artillery. (These are all generalisations, obviously. I've got some numbers somewhere if I get a chance to find them.) The more the attackers "leant on the barrage" (the closer to the trailing edge they stayed) the more successful they would likely be when it came to reaching the enemy dugouts before the defenders came out. The downside, of course, is that they would be at greater risk of taking casualties from their own barrage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'll trade you this rookie foil Lemon Shark for 2 of your near-mint Barracudas https://twitter.com/dril/status/329220520434364416?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Clarence posted:Think of the barrage as a box, rather than a line. Every so often the leading and trailing edges of the barrage would move forward a bit. Smoke shells would be included to greater or lesser extent which would aid the obscuration of the advancing troops. The rest would usually be a mix of HE and shrapnel. Typical use of gas shells was to suppress the enemy artillery. (These are all generalisations, obviously. I've got some numbers somewhere if I get a chance to find them.) On this subject, as I understand it the ordinary process for an attack in WWI was "pound with artillery, then charge", with the main improvements being better success at "try to use exactly the right amount of artillery (not too little to get results, not too much that you're just tearing up the ground while the targets are safe as houses in their shelters) and "get the infantry to the other trench as soon as possible after the shells stop coming". Are there any known cases of reversing the order - sending in the infantry to get the defenders into position, then dropping the artillery while they're exposed? I seem to remember reading something like this in a book once, but I have no clear notion of when I read it, where I read it, what I read, or why I was reading it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
That does seem like a good recipe to shell your own men unless you want them standing around in no mans land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
I'm not saying it would be a good idea, just that I think I've heard of it somewhere and am wondering if there was any real theories of that sort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I've spent many, many hours restoring a T-34/85, and spent time driving multiple WWII era tanks, mostly Shermans and a "Hetzer"/38(t). I've also been able to crawl around on other WWII tanks, from Pz IVs to Stuarts to LVTs. There isn't THAT much of a difference between WWII stuff and modern stuff - in some cases the WWII vehicles are more spacious, in others it's the other way around. All were, after all, designed to accommodate people. Boy, are you in the right thread. My hat's off to you. So about the T-55/T-72: how cramped are they? Sometimes I get the impression that the T-55 you just can't fit in if you are over 5'7; I know the T-72 is better, but it still seemed like in the gunner/commander position sitting in any but the default position will see you mangled by the auto-loader.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:That's why you don't issue winter clothing in the first place so that they don't throw it away. We don't need to give the troops winter clothing because we'll win the war by the end of summer!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Cessna posted:That's a concession to modernity. What year/factory production was this T-34? The standard primer used in all Soviet factories was lead oxide (железный сурик). Medium gray coloured primer was also occasionally used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I'm not saying it would be a good idea, just that I think I've heard of it somewhere and am wondering if there was any real theories of that sort. I think the issue is that you're misunderstanding the timetable of all this stuff. It's not as simple as the dudes being shelled ducking into their trenches and then popping up two seconds later when the shelling stops. They're retreating to dugouts that are sometimes way the gently caress deep and, if the attacker is lucky, the doors might be blocked or collapsed. Even if they're not these guys have to run out, get to the parapets of their trenches, and then set up stuff like MGs that would have been taken down to prevent damage. Once the barrage lifts, it's a race - the dudes in the dugouts are racing the dudes coming over the top to see who gets to the defensive trenches first. If the defenders win they catch the attackers in no man's land and cut them to pieces. This is basically what happened at the Somme - despite a terrifically heavy bombardment the Germans were able to get their asses in gear once it let up and get to their positions while the British were still advancing and massacre them. If the attackers win they throw hand grenades down the shafts to the dugouts and kill a lot of people before they reach their fighting positions. The point of the creeping barrage is to let your guys advance into no-man's-land while shells are still falling on the enemy, giving you a shorter final dash once the barrage lifts. You're not jumping into their fighting positions the second after the last shell drops, you just need to be close enough that they're still getting out of their dugouts by the time you hit their first earthworks. To use the earlier race metaphor, you're just trying to get a ten second head start. And yes, you could kill your own guys with it, although this was mostly from short rounds and the baseplates of shells occasionally whizzing backwards. By 1917-18 people got pretty good at timing this stuff. What's more, even the odd bit of friendly fire was worlds better than making an assault into the teeth of a fully manned position. Maybe a few people get blown up by your own arty, but it's far, far fewer than will be killed by the enemy otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I think the issue is that you're misunderstanding the timetable of all this stuff. It's not as simple as the dudes being shelled ducking into their trenches and then popping up two seconds later when the shelling stops. They're retreating to dugouts that are sometimes way the gently caress deep and, if the attacker is lucky, the doors might be blocked or collapsed. Even if they're not these guys have to run out, get to the parapets of their trenches, and then set up stuff like MGs that would have been taken down to prevent damage. Once the barrage lifts, it's a race - the dudes in the dugouts are racing the dudes coming over the top to see who gets to the defensive trenches first. If the defenders win they catch the attackers in no man's land and cut them to pieces. This is basically what happened at the Somme - despite a terrifically heavy bombardment the Germans were able to get their asses in gear once it let up and get to their positions while the British were still advancing and massacre them. If the attackers win they throw hand grenades down the shafts to the dugouts and kill a lot of people before they reach their fighting positions. My question was not "look at this cool idea I had!", it was "I think I remember reading something really bizarre, let me see if anybody else has heard the same thing, or maybe I'm just remembering something I came up myself while drunk."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
I would expect 'pin an enemy formation in place, then try to shoot it with cannons' is a very old strategy indeed. Rocroi presumably being the most famous example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Gnoman posted:My question was not "look at this cool idea I had!", it was "I think I remember reading something really bizarre, let me see if anybody else has heard the same thing, or maybe I'm just remembering something I came up myself while drunk." Sorry, I think I quoted the wrong person. I was responding to the person who was asking what creeping barrages were about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Gnoman posted:My question was not "look at this cool idea I had!", it was "I think I remember reading something really bizarre, let me see if anybody else has heard the same thing, or maybe I'm just remembering something I came up myself while drunk." So you're asking if the attackers ever pretended to start an assault so that the defenders all grab their rifles, ready their machine guns, and run into the trenches, but instead of starting the assault, a bunch of artillery shells drop on them instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:13
|
|
