|
GMC M12 and a small article: AA machine guns on tanks Big articles queue: GMC M40/M43, ISU-152, AMR 35 ZT, Soviet post-war tank building plans, T-100Y and SU-14-1, Object 430, Pz.Kpfw.35(t), T-60 tanks in combat, SU-76M modernizations, Panhard 178, 15 cm sFH 13/1 (Sf), 43M Zrínyi, Medium Tank M46, Modernization of the M48 to the M60 standard, German tank building trends at the end of WW2, Pz.Kpfw.III/IV, E-50 and E-75 development, Pre-war and early war British tank building, BT-7M/A-8 trials, Jagdtiger suspension, Light Tank T37, Light Tank T41, T-26-6 (SU-26), Voroshilovets tractor trials, Israeli armour 1948–1982, T-64's composite armour, Evolution of German tank observation devices, Oerlikon and Solothurn anti-tank rifles Available for request (others' articles):  Shashmurin's career T-55 underwater driving equipment T-34 tanks with M-17 engines ISU-152 Wartime and post-war anti-tank hand grenades  King Tigers in Hungary German King Tiger losses in December of 1944 in Hungary Small articles queue: IS-3 pike nose, T-34 with S-54 gun, TOG flamethrower for T-34 and KV-1 tanks Small articles available: linked because the list is too long New small articles: Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.A Carro Armato L6 KhT-26 flamethrower tank Matilda IV/V VK 30.01(P)
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Honestly, this kind of thing isn't that big a deal, and is a big part of where the "buttons and calibers" type of military history enthusiast butts up against historians who are working in a military topic, but aren't necessarily interested in the finer points. Well, I don't know... I recall it being used as part of an argument that placed 'soviet tanker' as one of the groups that took the most casualties in WWII (80% of tank crew died is the figure given IIRC), beyond even U-boat submariners, whereas in reality, well, it's a lot safer than infantry at least. It kinda projects the notion of hordes of tanks being sent forward in waves without any thought as to what happened to them. EDIT: quote:Of the 403,000 tank crew men who participated in the battle of Kursk, 310,000 would die, to name but a few. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:So there's always been this tension when it comes to criticizing the USSR and Stalin in particular. If you write about how the Soviets and their allies tried to suppress the Holocaust as merely another example of the "crimes of fascism" and making it just more dead civilians as opposed to part of a systemic effort of ethnic cleansing (that, I may add, a number of Ukrainian/Belorussian/Polish/Latvian/etc allies were not sorry at all to see happen), are you doing so because you're a CIA stooge who sees the USSR/Russia only in an adversarial light? Why were Stalin and the USSR interested in downplaying the Holocaust? Seems like playing up the evilness of Hitler plays into their postwar hands...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Why were Stalin and the USSR interested in downplaying the Holocaust? Seems like playing up the evilness of Hitler plays into their postwar hands... I'm not sure 'downplay' is the right word. Off the top of my head there are two motivations: 1) the Soviet narrative is that the holocaust was a natural consequence of capitalism (and the fault of the capitalist class, which conveniently lets the East Germans off the hook for any degree of complicity in a way that was definitely not extended to ordinary German soliders on the Eastern front). If it is a natural end-state of capitalism then it isn't a special or unique crime. 2) from the Soviet perspective the greater Nazi crime is 20-25 million Soviet dead, not six million Jewish dead. Western emphasis of the Holocaust in the narrative of Nazi crimes has tended to come at the expense of including the sheer awfulness of the Eastern front in popular understanding. So in Soviet history the Holocaust sits level with a long list of other Nazi atrocities. Downplayed perhaps in some elements, but really more a case of not-elevated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Why were Stalin and the USSR interested in downplaying the Holocaust? Seems like playing up the evilness of Hitler plays into their postwar hands... Because it also played into the hands of zionists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
A freshly restored 109G with a 605 engine just flew for the first time last week Highlights include how gorgeous that engine sounds, how great the plane looks, the pretend swastika, and, most importantly, the use of a little robot to move it around on the ground. My very halfassed scan of wiki indicates there's only 3 of these left airworthy (late model 109s with the correct DB engines) out of 30,000+. This thing is a real treasure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
I'd add that putting the Holocaust into the context of German war crimes in Eastern Europe helpfully erases the Soviet Union's own anti-semitic actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
This is a few pages back and about a week ago, but regarding US Airborne troops, I can speak to some of that. I was a junior NCO in the 82nd, but my knowledge is ~15 years or so out of date. On paper, our actual airborne assault mission profile is limited to airfield and bridgehead seizures. A lot of the behind enemy lines disrupt/destabilize msiions were removed from our doctrine after Korea. Essentially, we jump in, clear a space for the heavies to airlift in behind us and prosecute a break out. In reality, we were highly mobile, rapid strategic positioning troops and light infantry. With our DRF/IRF stances, it was "easy" to put us boots on the ground anywhere in the world in under 24 hours. We were very good at throwing poo poo in a bag, being in one place today, and redeploying to an entirely different AO tomorrow. As far as "elite" status, we certainly were told that on every occasion possible and we liked to believe it, but the reality is probably not so much. We were definitely given a bit more operational freedom down to the squad level and more clued in to the larger tactical picture than most infantry grunts, but that's about the extent of it. We were given the tactical goals of a particular mission and expected to "figure it out" as far down as the platoon level. My experience with other infantry units is that they were far more rigid and command driven than our "individual initiative" base. (This is a difference of degrees, not that we were given free reign) I don't know about "brutal" like the UK paras, but we certainly had a reputation for being reckless and "cowboys". Probably related to previously mentioned "individual initiative" and the fact paras kind of self select for a slightly different breed of idiot. Can answer anything within a junior NCOs purview and from a distance of about 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:(80% of tank crew died is the figure given IIRC) 80% of combatants in tank units died, which also included organically attached motorized infantry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not sure 'downplay' is the right word. Off the top of my head there are two motivations: It's not about the greater crime, it's about making the entire event political at its root rather than racial. By labeling everyone who died "victims of national socialism" you're able to put a Jew murdered at Babi Yar, a civilian killed in an artillery barrage, and a politician executed for their party affiliation on the same plane. You're right that it makes the Holocaust a consequence of capitalism, but it goes beyond that into centering communists/socialists as the primary victims of fascist aggression. This is visible in at its most stark in East Germany, where being a victim of national socialism was a recognized status that was somewhat of a cross between being a legally protected group and a veteran. Extra job opportunities, extra promotion considerations inside the state, iirc there might have also been a small pension, etc. Of course these officially recognized victims of national socialism were also the ones trotted out to lead tours of old facilities and explain why the nazis were bad, etc. In reality, however, this group was almost exclusively pre-war KPD and SPD members (all of them in good post-war standing in the SED, naturally) and the version of the persecution that was presented was about all those pre-war anti-fascists getting suppressed and murdered by the NSDAP's regime. The fact that Jews were targeted for entirely different reasons, and that huge swaths of the larger society were complicit in those crimes, went more or less unrecognized officially. So in the 60s or 70s, the defining image of "victims of national socialism" is going to be a pre-war KPD member taking school kids on tours of Buchenwald and explaining how they were arrested, beaten, and murdered for their political views (I'm actually thinking of one particular person with this, this was a real thing that happened). Which isn't wrong but it also ignores the very different experience of the (almost certainly deceased) Jews of Weimar who were bundled off to Polish ghettos and thence to one of the Operation Reinhard death camps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Honestly, this kind of thing isn't that big a deal, and is a big part of where the "buttons and calibers" type of military history enthusiast butts up against historians who are working in a military topic, but aren't necessarily interested in the finer points. I would also suspect that there were plenty of tank crewmen who were killed when their tank wasn't. I doubt that her figures were vastly off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not sure 'downplay' is the right word. Off the top of my head there are two motivations: This is absolutely true, and I'll add one more: Russia has a deep, rich history of antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:2) from the Soviet perspective the greater Nazi crime is 20-25 million Soviet dead, not six million Jewish dead. Western emphasis of the Holocaust in the narrative of Nazi crimes has tended to come at the expense of including the sheer awfulness of the Eastern front in popular understanding. This does always stick out to me, it's weird how the western narrative of Nazi crimes against humanities is so focused on the murders of Jewish people, and the other victims (Soviets, Poles, gays, Roma, etc.) get more or less left out out of the story, despite being pretty equal in terms of numbers of victims as far as I know. And that's before you start getting into all the deaths that results more directly as a consequence of the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This does always stick out to me, it's weird how the western narrative of Nazi crimes against humanities is so focused on the murders of Jewish people, and the other victims (Soviets, Poles, gays, Roma, etc.) get more or less left out out of the story, despite being pretty equal in terms of numbers of victims as far as I know. And that's before you start getting into all the deaths that results more directly as a consequence of the war. It's eye-opening reading Beevor's Second World War; I had no idea how badly Poland got hosed by the invasion. Two nations invade, easily crush the military, then set about straight up murdering all of the civilians. The USSR specifically targeting anyone that could "revive" Polish culture (teachers, politicians, anyone of any rank) was also horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:On Normandy histories are getting a bit incremental so any big book with NORMANDY in the title is probably good as long as Max Hastings isn't the author, but I'm reading Sand & Steel by Peter Caddick-Adams right now which I think is the most recent big book on the subject and it's pretty good. What's wrong with Max Hastings? I quite enjoyed his book on Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:A freshly restored 109G with a 605 engine just flew for the first time last week the sound is really great
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This does always stick out to me, it's weird how the western narrative of Nazi crimes against humanities is so focused on the murders of Jewish people, and the other victims (Soviets, Poles, gays, Roma, etc.) get more or less left out out of the story, despite being pretty equal in terms of numbers of victims as far as I know. And that's before you start getting into all the deaths that results more directly as a consequence of the war. The scale of the eastern front of WW2 is impossible to understand for many westerners. Battle of Britain and the Blitz are pretty easy to understand for most because western media has repeated the same stories ever since. Some 60 thousand British civilians died in the bombings over the course of war, that's a large number. But the siege of a single city, Leningrad? A million civilians died. Probably - there are different estimates of the casualties, and error margins are usually in the size of several Battles of Britain.  Another example: during WW2 an estimated one million inmates died in the GULag from starvation. These are mostly Soviet citizens, dying in Soviet prisons... The size of the holocaust is also boggling, but western audiences have already been familiarized with the story several times which also makes it a tempting subject for more stories. A movie like Pianist might have worked if it told the story of a gay pianist or gipsy pianist or whatever, but it's presumably much harder to find funding for a big budget project about those because it's riskier for production company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What's wrong with Max Hastings? I quite enjoyed his book on Vietnam. He's a good writer and is very good at presenting human stories from conflict and history, but he's also lazy and casts broad strokes that are wrong. For example he writes about the German soldier being an inherently better fighting man than British or American soldiers in 1944, which is a grossly misleading misstatement of the nature of the armies fighting in Normandy. e: like if you want to go from zero to broadly understanding what happened, Hastings is fine. Just treat all of his observations as suspect and something you might find rejected if you pick up something written with a more academic focus. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:So apologies if this is too old for this thread's purview, but I was wondering something; what was a medieval European navy like? Basically how was a medieval navy organized (were there peasant commanders or like the land-based military was the captain of a ship also a knight or some other martial noble) and how was it equipped? For the sake of clarity since I'm well aware how broad in space and time 'medieval European' is, let's say French since in many ways, to me at least, they're kind of the archetypal feudal kingdom, and for time period, let's say High and Late Middle Ages; gunpowder is a thing and ships have those front-facing cannons, but there's no moveable gun carriages yet and the age of gunpowder has yet to truly emerge. The major French/English naval engagement during the 100 Year's War (more or less the apogee of what we think of as medieval warfare) was the Battle of Sluys in 1340. Naval combat then, and for centuries before, had been dominated by oared galleys, and the French used a handful of their own galleys, supplemented by larger fleets of Genoese mercenary galleys, and were able to control the channel for years. Then, there was a payroll problem with the merc fleets, the sailors all got mad and went home, and in January of 1340, the English raided the port of Boulogne and were able to burn all but six of the remaining French galleys. The English were more or less free to cross the channel at this point and planned to land at Sluys in Flanders. To counter this, the French used around 200merchant ships as a literal blockade, lashed and chained together across the mouth of the port. Over the course of a day, the ships were moved by tides, currents and wind into a big clusterfuck on the eastern shore of the bay, so the French commander tried to sort all that and get the ships back in order, and while he was doing this, the English attacked. quote:Cobham reported back late that night on the state of the French fleet. Edward entered the roadstead at high tide the next day, 24 June, manoeuvring to be able to attack with the advantage of wind and tide and with the sun behind them. The traditional view is that the attack took place at 3:00 pm. After nearly a day linked by chains and ropes, and with wind and rain working against them, the French ships had been driven to the east of their starting positions and become entangled with each other. Béhuchet and Quiéret ordered the ships to be separated, although in the event this proved difficult, and the fleet attempted to move back to the west, against the wind and the tide. In this disorganised state they made contact with the English. The English utterly bodied the French, killed like 16000 against losses of under 1000, and destroyed or captured almost the entire French fleet. Fortunately the French would go on to make zero bad decisions that cost them battles in which they held overwhelming numerical superiority ever again. I'm not aware of any open sea ship-to-ship battles of the era, like I said the majority of naval combat during the period was fought with galleys, and those were from Italy. I'm not an expert on galley combat (or anything really) but I understand it's mostly about ramming dudes. But as far as the non Med European powers went, medieval navies were ad hoc and disorganized. As to your question about class and rank, the French at Sluys were commanded by knights not sailors, and in fact the commander of the six French galleys, who was an experienced seaman who learned his trade in the Med, advised these knights that lashing their ships together in a big old fake island for the English to practice archery on was stupid and they should put to sea where they could maneuver, but he was dismissed as a commoner. French haughtiness and airs, I think, is the primary factor in England's domination of the first half of the 100YW. zoux fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Also does anyone still have the ask/tell book recommendations? I know it still exists, just don't have the link off-hand. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1buFxmcagen7DjbXv3qw8BxilQL7GKzdtBj3f-W14LPI/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:He's a good writer and is very good at presenting human stories from conflict and history, but he's also lazy and casts broad strokes that are wrong. For example he writes about the German soldier being an inherently better fighting man than British or American soldiers in 1944, which is a grossly misleading misstatement of the nature of the armies fighting in Normandy. I am so tired of these generalizations. It's one thing to generalize about equipment, doctrine, training, and so forth, and conclude from there that in a certain context, a typical German soldier had a higher combat value than a typical American soldier. Even then, I want the author to show his work, but there's plausibility there. But "inherent" comes with a fantastic amount of baggage and needs to go in the scrap bin. I am not a researcher but it seems to me that there are plenty of examples of individual soldiers of every skin color, religion, nationality, etc fighting with bravery, discipline, and utmost determination. Where units ended up with negligible fighting value, it's not because the individual soldiers suffered from "inherent" defects, it's because of rot that started at higher levels and worked its way down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember that poo poo coming up in like... statistical analyses, but the edge was something like 'a given German unit will be about 30% more effective than its Allied equivalent,' and this was mostly due to the various cumulative advantages of training. It eroded heavily as they went along, much as with the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:The major French/English naval engagement during the 100 Year's War (more or less the apogee of what we think of as medieval warfare) was the Battle of Sluys in 1340. Naval combat then, and for centuries before, had been dominated by oared galleys, and the French used a handful of their own galleys, supplemented by larger fleets of Genoese mercenary galleys, and were able to control the channel for years. Then, there was a payroll problem with the merc fleets, the sailors all got mad and went home, and in January of 1340, the English raided the port of Boulogne and were able to burn all but six of the remaining French galleys. The English were more or less free to cross the channel at this point and planned to land at Sluys in Flanders. To counter this, the French used around 200merchant ships as a literal blockade, lashed and chained together across the mouth of the port. Over the course of a day, the ships were moved by tides, currents and wind into a big clusterfuck on the eastern shore of the bay, so the French commander tried to sort all that and get the ships back in order, and while he was doing this, the English attacked. anglo_history_writing.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
No that would me saying that was down to English elan and the inherent superiority of the longbow, which we should actually still use today in the military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:No that would me saying that was down to English elan That's a suspiciously french word to describe native English pluck and grit. I'll bet you don't support Our Ancient Fishing Rights either 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
In fairness to Hastings, he expands his thesis to explain that the reason he claims that the Germans performed better is because they were soldiers of a dictatorship that was willing to use summary executions to keep them in line and that compelled a willingness to fight that didn't exist in the armies of democracies. To a degree there is something in this, but he's not distinguishing between the 1939 Wehrmacht that wins because of superiority of leadership and doctrine, and the 1944 Wehrmacht that exacts a hard toll on the Allies because it is dug into some of the best terrain you could ask to defend in Wester Europe and he doesn't care to explain that the late war German armed forces are a shadow of their former selves and what has changed in the quality of manpower and the willingness to fight. e: and it is a fair point that as a deliberate policy the US army decided that rifle infantry would get the absolute dregs of the conscript bucket. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Nov 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Edward III spoke French!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This does always stick out to me, it's weird how the western narrative of Nazi crimes against humanities is so focused on the murders of Jewish people, and the other victims (Soviets, Poles, gays, Roma, etc.) get more or less left out out of the story, despite being pretty equal in terms of numbers of victims as far as I know. And that's before you start getting into all the deaths that results more directly as a consequence of the war. Well, people dying in war is expected and fairly common throughout history, while it's pretty uncommon to roundup and mass-execute people in cold blood, and when you start getting into the idea of how the Nazis were different, the holocaust is a lot more important when analyzing how they were different as opposed to being another warmonging state in a long history with lots of states that did wars to get stuff. And I guess the western world was more focused in debunking and dismantling the ideology of the Nazis while the Soviets were more focused on expanding themselves and their own ideology, so it wasn't as necessary to dig into the details of how the Nazis were bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1buFxmcagen7DjbXv3qw8BxilQL7GKzdtBj3f-W14LPI/edit?usp=sharing #blessed thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:- the Russian view of the war (but NOT Stalin focused, I've read enough about the man and would like to not focus on him) Russia's War by Richard Overy is a really good overview of WW2, focusing on the Soviet perspective. Incidentally my biggest critique of the book is the title - It does the very Western 20th century thing of conflating Russia with the USSR. Sure, Russia was the dominant country in the USSR, but only about half of the USSR's population at the time of WW2 was Russian; It erases the Ukrainian, Georgian, etc contribution to defeating the Nazis, which is somewhat ironic considering the book is about the Soviet perspective of the war. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Nov 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
My knowledge of the subject is limited to Sluys and Chibi, but has chaining ships together in battle ever been a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:My knowledge of the subject is limited to Sluys and Chibi, but has chaining ships together in battle ever been a good idea? Apparently it was an extremely common tactic for fleets on the defensive, I assume it worked sometimes and not so much other times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
I can't think of a time where it really paid off. Naval chains have paid off enormously more than a few times, Xiangyang comes to mind, but that wasn't "boats chained together" that was "chains blocking all movement on the water."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
It's a thing you do when you know the coming battle is going to be a disaster and you are trying to limit the number of your ships that are going to get captured and taken away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:My knowledge of the subject is limited to Sluys and Chibi, but has chaining ships together in battle ever been a good idea? Apparently the Napoleonic French navy did so effectively. quote:The essence of a cutting-out attack is surprise. The French, having been attacked once, were on their guard. Their vessels were chained together and to the shore, and not one was taken or burned. (During action at Boulogne, from Terry Coleman: "The Nelson Touch. The Life and Legend of Horatio Nelson", Oxford University Press: Oxford New York, 2002, p271.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
With the Soviet Union and the Holocaust I think it's also important to note that quite often, such as when the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, reporters were expressly prohibited from mentioning that Jews had been specifically targeted or made up a disproportionate number of inmates. There seemed to be a clear, and to many frightening, agenda to this, particularly the many Jewish war correspondents who accompanied the military during the war, like Vasily Grossman who ended thoroughly disillusioned by this and post-war events where his and others efforts to document and publish accounts accounts of the Holocaust were blocked by the authorities (with resultant persecution and imprisonment for many).Neophyte posted:Late but I want to strongly recommend Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction, it's not precisely a blow-by-blow history of the Nazi war but it is a surprisingly readable autopsy on the Nazi economy before and during the war, and how hosed up it was - which of course directly leads into losing the war. I'd like to comment some of this having recently re-read the book, but the first part of the second paragraph isn't really what the book says, yeah it portrays the Nazi system as chaotic and full of overlapping organizations and systems (contrast for instance the very state-driven aircraft industry with many others) so it's not the "trains run on time" parable, but a point that is repeatedly driven home in the book is that Nazi Germany had the most extensive and rapid mobilization of resources for military production of basically any capitalist economy in peacetime. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
Was there a difference between the chevauchee as practiced by England in the 1300s and what Sherman did in his march to the sea? I know that I've read people who talk about Sherman's new philosophy of total war like it was an epiphany but the Black Prince burned Aquitaine to the loving ground to try and get the French forces to commit to open battle - and it wasn't like he was the first guy to do that either. What are other examples of Shermanesque "hard war" that predate the ACW? The wiki page on it starts with the 19th century and gives only the barest nod to earlier eras (and cites only the Mongols as an example)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:A freshly restored 109G with a 605 engine just flew for the first time last week It speaks to the sound design team of Battle of Britain for having those engines noises ingrained in my brain, same for hurricanes and spits. And He-111 gunners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was there a difference between the chevauchee as practiced by England in the 1300s and what Sherman did in his march to the sea? I know that I've read people who talk about Sherman's new philosophy of total war like it was an epiphany but the Black Prince burned Aquitaine to the loving ground to try and get the French forces to commit to open battle - and it wasn't like he was the first guy to do that either. looting and burning has been the most common way of waging war, and it's still done this wiki page has more examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
zoux posted:Was there a difference between the chevauchee as practiced by England in the 1300s and what Sherman did in his march to the sea? I know that I've read people who talk about Sherman's new philosophy of total war like it was an epiphany but the Black Prince burned Aquitaine to the loving ground to try and get the French forces to commit to open battle - and it wasn't like he was the first guy to do that either. Carthage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 02:28
|
|
