|
steinrokkan posted:What are the credible sources for this entirely made up "battle" whose existence is disproven by even the most superficial study of the Austro-Turkish war. Holograph from Joseph II to Leopold posted:Everything was proceeding in the greatest order and we would have arrived in Caransebes without the enemy's knowledge for it was night Ali of a sudden a group of Wallachians... became alarmed and fired their rifles which threw a unit of hussars and dragoons into confusion.... They answered this fire before finally attacking the infantry.... The column in which I found myself was completely dispersed Cannons, wagons and all the tents were turned over, it was horrible; [my] soldiers shooting at each other! Eventually calm was restored, and we were lucky that the Turks were not on our trail otherwise the whole army would have been destroyed. Nevertheless, we lost not only all the pots and tents with considerable damage ta other baggage but also three pieces of artillery.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Is there actual evidence of anyone really using double-bitted axes for real as a weapon? Phrygians iirc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I wonder what the guys in those slabs would think of their predicament?  One of the dead was twelve. If you die outside of battle there's a ceremony (involving pikes ofc) and you are either buried in hallowed ground if there's a church nearby or--if you die in camp--you are buried beneath the soil of the camp Either way they'd probably be OK with being displayed. Some ossuaries got that way because they were popular with "normal people"--I think it was Sedlec that had dirt from the Holy Land sprinkled over the dirt in the churchyard there, making it highly attractive as a burial site. They would also have been used to body parts being used as medicine or for magic, the body parts of criminals being displayed as a way to dishonor them, and if they were catholic to skeletons in their churches. Even if someone had been buried with religious rites, a big medieval or early modern churchyard like in Prague, Vienna, Paris, would have involved the public sight and smell of corpses. There are no individual plots, there is a large dirt plaza in the middle of the city which is used as a marketplace and meeting place, and it's full of corpses underneath. In paris a trench was always kept open in that area and bodies were put into it. The gravestones we see on the outsides of churches attached to the walls, or memorial grave pillars, are not put exactly on top of the location of the deceased, but near them. The relationship of the exact location of the dead person to their memorial takes on more importance later. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In American English, the derogatory synonym for noble is 'noble.' The British Army equivalent is 'Rupert', being a stereotypically posh clueless aristo sort of name. Having a class system doesn't mean those in the lower part of it feel deferential to those in the upper part of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I’m going to get killed for this but... This video just about covers it. The guy also has a book on the topic that came out recently, but I haven't read it yet. https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wiki says the 57mm was a British gun. It was, but the US produced it and it was their standard issue AT gun for the entire war. The US Army did produce 76mm towed guns, too, but their combat record was extremely bad because it had an excessively bulky carriage and they just never really had much of a use for them. As the war went on, towed AT guns became less and less useful because the need to make them larger made them far less flexible- the 37mm guns of the war's beginning could be manhandled and towed by pretty much any vehicle. The large, powerful AT guns that were necessary by the end of the war required heavy-duty prime movers and had zero tactical mobility for that reason. Even the Germans desperately sought self-propelled AT guns for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I guess what got me interested was the suggestion there was an active political effort to expunge their social relevance and distinction in Sweden, beyond just stripping them of legal privileges and tax exemptions. Going so far as to change the military officer structure because it was associated with class differences sounds like there must have been a pretty strong political effort to reduce class distinctions. OK so Norway is a country that got rid of its NCOs in the thirties and Sweden are the vile oppressors from which we won our independence in  The background for the consolidation of the NCOs into officers was that Norwegian NCOs, in 1930, were the highest educated NCOs in the world, with three years of higher education to become one. Against this background, the NCO/officer distinction was seen as somewhat pointless, and everyone became officers. In this regard it wasn't a major reorganization to get rid of something associated with class differences. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Dec 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
how much of a role did 88mm AT guns play into Rommel's success in Africa? I remember them being brought up a lot but they don't seem to be a particularly offensive-oriented weapon
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It was, but the US produced it and it was their standard issue AT gun for the entire war. The US Army did produce 76mm towed guns, too, but their combat record was extremely bad because it had an excessively bulky carriage and they just never really had much of a use for them. As the war went on, towed AT guns became less and less useful because the need to make them larger made them far less flexible- the 37mm guns of the war's beginning could be manhandled and towed by pretty much any vehicle. The large, powerful AT guns that were necessary by the end of the war required heavy-duty prime movers and had zero tactical mobility for that reason. Even the Germans desperately sought self-propelled AT guns for this reason. Also, the US doctrine for fighting tanks made AT guns less essential than they were for the Germans. Americans relied heavily on a mixture of infantry anti-tank (the bazooka was specifically developed to give American infantry anti-tank punch in the feared Blitzkrieg situation) and artillery and air support to suppress and sometimes mobility kill armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:how much of a role did 88mm AT guns play into Rommel's success in Africa? I remember them being brought up a lot but they don't seem to be a particularly offensive-oriented weapon Rommel didn’t have any 88mm AT guns, he had some of the famous 88mm AA guns which worked well against tanks in a pinch. As you might imagine though they were really difficult to use in an offensive manner, more so than even purpose built AT guns since they were meant to be behind the lines shooting at airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I’m going to get killed for this but... How about a lecture? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Antitank guns work best from prepared positions, since firing one typically gives away your location and you have to relocate. As an offensive weapon they are very hard to apply. I read about what the Red Army called "dagger style" AT gun deployment, where you wheel out your guns to meet an enemy counter attack. The ZIS-3 was basically the limit of what you could do this with, I can't imagine it working to any degree with a gun the size of a Flak 18.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
On the one hand TDs had limited success, but on the other hand they had one in Kelly’s Heroes so it’s impossible to say if they’re a good thing or not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
So on a Christmas-y sort of note: I know Thanksgiving and Christmas are, for US troops in the modern day, the subject of seemingly huge logistical efforts to make sure they get Food Like Home. Was that the case in WW2? Or WW1? When did that even start anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:So on a Christmas-y sort of note: Definitely in WW2. Not sure about 1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Unless you were on the outskirts of Bastogne.  Schadenboner posted:On the one hand TDs had limited success, but on the other hand they had one in Kelly’s Heroes so it’s impossible to say if they’re a good thing or not? The M3 GMC was more than a little bit anachronistic in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Unless you were on the outskirts of Bastogne. Not as bad as using M-47s for literally everything in Patton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:how much of a role did 88mm AT guns play into Rommel's success in Africa? I remember them being brought up a lot but they don't seem to be a particularly offensive-oriented weapon I think they we're mainly for defending against counter attacks. Sometimes the German panzers would feign retreat and the Brits tanks would follow into an ambush
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Or Battle of the Bulge with its M24s vs M47s in the open and sparse fields of the Ardennes (with nary a flake of snow to be seen).
Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Not as bad as using M-47s for literally everything in Patton. Also with them making Patton look like he wasn’t completely useless, the Afro-European MacArthur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Not as bad as using M-47s for literally everything in Patton. I remember as a kid renting two WW2 movies set in North Africa and finding the same shot of a P-40 attacking a German vehicle column and flying away trailing smoke - in Death Race it was the set up to the damaged plane being unable to fly properly and in Tobruk (or possibly Raid On Rommel?) it was a friendly fire attack on a commando unit pretending to be Germans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Or Battle of the Bulge with its M24s vs M47s in the open and sparse fields of the ardennes. Wikipedia has a poorly sourced quote alleging that IKE came out of retirement just to make a public comment about that movie being complete poo poo that I choose to believe is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Not as bad as using M-47s for literally everything in Patton.  The British tanks were M24s, and there were a few M41s in there too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also, the US doctrine for fighting tanks made AT guns less essential than they were for the Germans. Americans relied heavily on a mixture of infantry anti-tank (the bazooka was specifically developed to give American infantry anti-tank punch in the feared Blitzkrieg situation) and artillery and air support to suppress and sometimes mobility kill armor. It wasn't really doctrine at work. Weapons such as bazookas are close-in defense weapons, effective at very close range. AT guns have a high range and in a prepared defensive position are going to be the primary weapon keeping tanks from just hanging out at 300m and blasting away. They're both very present in the infantry divisions. The most effective anti tank elements in the IDs were the tank and tank destroyer battalions that were attached, though. Usually it was one of each in every infantry division, occasionally two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wikipedia has a poorly sourced quote alleging that IKE came out of Patton came out in 1970 and Eisenhower died in 1969. That must have been one hell of a comment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Patton came out in 1970 and Eisenhower died in 1969. Murdering bastards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It wasn't really doctrine at work. Weapons such as bazookas are close-in defense weapons, effective at very close range. AT guns have a high range and in a prepared defensive position are going to be the primary weapon keeping tanks from just hanging out at 300m and blasting away. They're both very present in the infantry divisions. The most effective anti tank elements in the IDs were the tank and tank destroyer battalions that were attached, though. Usually it was one of each in every infantry division, occasionally two. Bazookas were also not intended to be the primary source of tank defense, though the US did produce a lot of them so there was a decently good chance that any platoon-strength group would have at least one. Not as prevalent as Panzerfausts of course. They also were useful in city fighting as a way to open new entrances into buildings. Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Patton came out in 1970 and Eisenhower died in 1969. That must have been one hell of a comment. He was referring to Battle of the Bulge Taerkar fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:He was referring to Battle of the Bulge Whoops, my bad. Yeah that one was before he died.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Yeah I was talking about BotB which is just shut. Patton is still really good if you can live with the gushing hero worship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Definitely in WW2. Not sure about 1. I recall reading about how they did try to do a Thanksgiving for World War I. Not sure how widespread it is but there are pictures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
At least A Bridge Too Far used German tanks: Leopard 1s And it was moooostly on location.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Remember that time Klink was bragging to Hogan about the new Tiger tank in development?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:Remember that time Klink was bragging to Hogan about the new Tiger tank in development? Fashies using a tank named for racist fuccboi? Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Fashies using a tank named for racist fuccboi? Checks out. "Priest"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
GotLag posted:"Priest"? Lee
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
I was actually thinking of Colonel Beauregard Emthree of the 69/420th Georgia Lancers but yours is better? 
Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Dec 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
That might well have been a Lee once but it isn't in that picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
vuk83 posted:I think they we're mainly for defending against counter attacks. Sometimes the German panzers would feign retreat and the Brits tanks would follow into an ambush The slickest way to make war is to be on the strategic offensive but the tactical defensive, which is a fancy way to say, let the enemy attack where you want them to attack, crush those attacks, then pursue. The British were terribly obliging about that sort of thing in North Africa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
GotLag posted:That might well have been a Lee once but it isn't in that picture. I mean, I get limited opportunities to poo poo upon Robert E. Traitor, I gotta take the shots I do get? 
Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Dec 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:At least A Bridge Too Far used German tanks: Leopard 1s Honestly the Leopard 1 isn't too bad. They put some cardboard around the turret so it's got a boxy turret, a large rounded gun mantlet with a large gun and a sloped UFP that's not only at about the right angle but also about the right thickness. The hull sides are slightly sloped and, although I don't remember if they were fitted in A Bridge Too Far, the side skirts are quite short. If they'd painted it in the late war sand/rust/green paint instead of early war grey then I think it would be held up as an example of good fakery before its time. Schadenboner posted:I was actually thinking of Colonel Beauregard Emthree of the 69/420th Georgia Lancers but yours is better? Perhaps you were actually thinking of Col. George McEmseven of the 420th North Carolina Volunteers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 08:58
|
|
