|
Pretty much every version of Battle Hymn of the Republic is awesome. The Engineering Corps version is still sung by Canadian engineering students. e: Paratroopers version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgsdexkv18 Really odd engineering version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMVVCG4WnwM Cat Wings fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 15, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
cavalry.txt :iamafag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0SZYbwA1iw The dude's voice is way too polished for this, in my opinion. This version's incomplete and the singing bugs me, but the sound is rougher, which is good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnflIwK6RYU Also,  fat reenactors.Edit: As far as I know, this song encapsulates Stuart's attitude to life. Like I said, cavalry.txt. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:As an interesting note, back in September I visited the Hideyoshi museum at Osaka Castle. Now I'm sure most of you have heard about Japanese textbooks controversies regarding WWII and their tendency to minimize atrocities etc. So imagine my surprise when I got to the section about the First Great Asian War and the English/Korean display said that Hideyoshi tried to commit "genocide" and that he "terrorized the Korean people". I was definitely surprised to see that kind of language in a Japanese museum. I'm not sure if it is because of changing attitudes, or because this conflict was long enough ago that they don't really care about coming off as noble or if the main Japanese inscription did not actually include those terms. This was the case in Tokyo museums too, they were all quite straightforward about this sort of thing. The main museum even had a whole display room about how Koreans basically brought civilization to Japan. Exception is the war museum at the Yasukuni shrine but that one is specifically known for being Right-Wing Nationalist Bullshit: The Museum, so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Welcome, new mod. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
I'm glad for the thread change since I'm still like 4,000 posts behind on the old one.  Also glad someone added the tank destroyer rule before me. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:Really odd engineering version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMVVCG4WnwM That's a perfectly normal engineering song. a travelling HEGEL posted:cavalry.txt :iamafag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgZCzi4W-wc Edit: I like this version better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnFhgoMnpeI Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm glad for the thread change since I'm still like 4,000 posts behind on the old one.  in it without getting up to date on the entire thing. Which is, in my opinion, not necessary for a three year old megathread. I mean, if you want to, knock yourself out, but nobody was going to jump down anyone's neck for not being familiar with all the details of something that huge. We inadvertently drove a lot of new people away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
You poor bastard you posted too well! Now look at you. I would like a big thick book recommendation about Stalingrad that tells me what it was like for the fellows actually fighting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
I always lose my place when I try flipping back and fourth between post bookmarks so I never try posting and reading. And yeah, the amount people know about tank destroyers dumbfounded me, although I guess some of my history-related interests are even more obscure. Also I notice there's a surprising number of posters in this thread that aren't in the other history threads. What's up with that? Grand Fromage posted:This was the case in Tokyo museums too, they were all quite straightforward about this sort of thing. The main museum even had a whole display room about how Koreans basically brought civilization to Japan. How often does this come up in Korea? Koramei fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Koramei posted:How often does this come up in Korea? It's an opportunity to poo poo on Japan, you can do the math.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:Pretty much every version of Battle Hymn of the Republic is awesome. The Engineering Corps version is still sung by Canadian engineering students. Ninja edit: it might not actually have been ANAL sex, but TBH the details are gone foggy with time and sheer quantity of alcohol involved while learning it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:My school's rugby team had one that involved killing a polar bear, in Antarctica, via anal sex. I hated the entirety of my school's rugby culture except for that one song. Koramei posted:Also I notice there's a surprising number of posters in this thread that aren't in the other history threads. What's up with that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Early Modern Germany is kind of a niche thing. What made you want to study it? (Also, you are a teaching professor, correct?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What made you want to study it? (Also, you are a teaching professor, correct?) Edit: Also, a love of the tabletop roleplaying game 7th Sea. Not kidding. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
It's a huge cliché but if you want to buy a collection of war songs you can't go wrong with the Red Army Choir. Almost all songs are fantastic and my only regret is that there are no versions of Katyusha on there http://www.amazon.com/Best-Red-Army-Choir/dp/B000066RMJ
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also I notice there's a surprising number of posters in this thread that aren't in the other history threads. What's up with that? Some of them are or were in places I don't read (old GBS and D&D) and others are things I don't find that interesting (Mesoamerica).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Centurium posted:
This is from a few pages back, but what would actually happen at the end of a charge, once you'd ridden (or run, if infantry) all the way across the battlefield and got close to the other guys? If they chicken out and break, then you get to chase them down - fine. But if they hold, do you just keep going helter skelter and run into them for a body check? Or do you have to slow down in the last ten metres? Would you have even been running? I'm imagining a wind sprint before some protracted hand-to-hand fighting wouldn't do you any favours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:If they chicken out and break, then you get to chase them down - fine. But if they hold, do you just keep going helter skelter and run into them for a body check? Or do you have to slow down in the last ten metres? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Some of them are or were in places I don't read (old GBS and D&D) and others are things I don't find that interesting (Mesoamerica). That still leaves a couple of threads! Elissimpark posted:This is from a few pages back, but what would actually happen at the end of a charge, once you'd ridden (or run, if infantry) all the way across the battlefield and got close to the other guys? Usually the cavalry would veer off to either side at the last moment- it was really like a game of chicken (sans the game part and with more horrificness). Probe for weakness, see if the infantry look like they're gonna hold and so on. I think cavalry will still usually have an edge in protracted melee unless they're grossly outnumbered, but it is not the situation they're looking to get into. If horses just crash into a formation that doesn't break, they will probably die. So will a bunch of the dudes in the formation, but I doubt the cavalry would call it an even trade. Koramei fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Usually the cavalry would veer off to either side at the last moment- it was really like a game of chicken (sans the game part and with more horrificness). I can tell you and I and Rodrigo Diaz are going to have some nice times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:If you're cavalry: Go towards them, stop a way in front of them, fire your pistol/carbine at them if you have one (this is period-dependent, of course), run away, run toward them, stop a way in front of them, fire your pistol/carbine at them if you have one, run away....
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
If you try plow your horse into a bunch of dudes who aren't giving, two things happen. 1. Your horse is ill-trained and it freaks the gently caress out. It does its best to not follow your commands, so you probably veer off. In the worst case, it rears up in front of these angry infantry dudes and you get your rear end beat. 2. You bowl over whoever is in your path, and probably one or two more guys behind him. You may or may not take a grievous wound in the process. If it's just you, you aren't going to last so long in a sea of infantry because now you're surrounded by angry dudes who are stabbing the poo poo out of you and your horse. The best case scenario is that you break through to the other side in the inital charge, without terrible injury. If a whole unit were to charge in an infantry formation, you would get better results. Still, it's just not a good idea to be surrounded by a swarm of infantry. Even the best armoured knight would get unhorsed if he loses his mobility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:You poor bastard you posted too well! Now look at you. Beevor's Stalingrad is excellent, and it covers Operation Blue, the siege of Stalingrad, Operation Uranus, and the liquidation of the pocket. Maybe not so thick, I remember it being around 250 pages, but it certainly tells the depressing human side of the battles. If you want to read about planes full of wounded being blown apart by Soviet flak, Stalingrad's got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:If you try plow your horse into a bunch of dudes who aren't giving, two things happen. If Occupy ever becomes a thing again, I'll try to test this out by giving everyone else staves and promising them that nothing will happen if they don't run. I'll get back to you on that. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:If you try plow your horse into a bunch of dudes who aren't giving, two things happen. a travelling HEGEL posted:This is correct! Except as far as I know, #2 hardly ever happened. (Which is actually good for all concerned: google racetrack accidents for an image of what would happen if this were a thing.) There is no such thing as "shock" in the sense of a horse literally smashing into a dude like a big furry missile. It will refuse at the last minute, no matter how well trained it is--especially if the dude has a pike or something and is aiming the point at the horse's face. Accounts of "shock" are, in my opinion, either accounts of the foot breaking due to the psychological impact of cavalry coming right the gently caress at them, or describe a situation which is not the norm (the horse is dead already but still moving forward, it's happening on a bridge so everyone is crammed into a tiny space, etc). See, this is what I was thinking and was wondering why infantry would ever run from cavalry, unless horribly, horribly outnumbered. I was picturing some early modern General Melchett sending wave after wave of cavalry over the comically large piles of dead horses, because after 18 charges, it'd be the last thing they'd expect. The Wikipedia article on Cataphracts talks about the Parthians pummelling the Romans with arrows from horse archers so the Romans would loosen their formations and therefore be more vulnerable to a charge from the cataphracts themselves. So the lesson here, I guess, is that you want to be able to break out the back of the infantry formation if you're going to just keep charging. What about infantry charges (pre-guns)? Would you be running to get into hand-to-hand, or would it be more a brisk walk?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:This is from a few pages back, but what would actually happen at the end of a charge, once you'd ridden (or run, if infantry) all the way across the battlefield and got close to the other guys? I'm going to speak only for the high-late middle ages about 1000-1500, to make things easier, since I get the impression that during other periods things are different. It depends entirely on what kind of cavalry you're talking about. Kataphraktoi, for example, were heavily armoured and would happily ignore spears, though they actually charged very slowly, at a trot rather than a canter or gallop. They had lances and iron maces which wrought terrible havoc, in addition to the horse's own hooves helping to clear a path. Knights on more lightly armoured horses, like those the Normans used at Hastings, essentially relied upon disorganization or other breaks in the enemy line to be truly effective. This could be caused by arrows, by infantry infiltrating the spears on foot, by the pure intimidation of the charge, or by the clever use of ruses like feigned retreat to draw out parts of the formation. It was this latter technique that allowed the Normans to pull off and annihilate a large part of the English at Hastings. Flanks, of course, were substantially more vulnerable. While cavalry would sometimes charge frontally at formed infantry this was usually prompted by desperation or overweening arrogance. More prudent cavalrymen would, if they have to, engage at a slower pace and try to fence off enemy spears. This did not always work, but it is better than the mad charges that led to poor results at battles like Bremule and Loudoun Hill. a travelling HEGEL posted:Except as far as I know, #2 hardly ever happened. (Which is actually good for all concerned: google racetrack accidents for an image of what would happen if this were a thing.) There is no such thing as "shock" in the sense of a horse literally smashing into a dude like a big furry missile. It will refuse at the last minute, no matter how well trained it is--especially if the dude has a pike or something and is aiming the point at the horse's face. Accounts of "shock" are, in my opinion, either accounts of the foot breaking due to the psychological impact of cavalry coming right the gently caress at them, or describe an unusual situation (the horse is dead already but still moving forward, it's happening on a bridge so everyone is crammed into a tiny space, etc). This is wrong. Horses can and will break spears with their bodies if sufficiently armoured, and indeed I have in the past provided explicit statements from a Byzantine military manual that they will do so. I don't especially believe that the horse's body was a primary weapon, but it is exceedingly clear that they would knock men over under the right circumstances, and death by trampling was a regular part of battle. Horses could push through throngs of men (and indeed there are plenty of references to them doing just this), but the knight's lance was the primary weapon. Take this example from Wace: quote:There was a mercenary there from France who conducted himself very nobly and sat on a wonderful horse. He saw two very arrogant Englishmen, who had stayed close to each other because they were highly thought of... They held two long, broad pikes at shoulder height and were doing great harm to the Normans, killing men and horses. The mercenary looked at them, saw the pikes and feared them... But soon he had quite different thoughts. He spurred his horse, pricking it and dropping the reins, and the horse carried him swiftly. He raised his shield by the straps, for fear of the two pikes, and struck one of the Englishmen cleanly with the lance he was holding, beneath the chin, on the chest; the iron passed right through his spine. While this one was being struck down, the lance fell and shattered, and he seized the bludgeon which hung from his his right arm and struck the other Englishman an upwards blow, shattering and breaking his head. So clearly a polearm on its own (the original word Wace uses is gisarme, but at the very least he makes it clear that they were longer than normal spears) is not proof against cavalry, and I believe the ability to use the lance to fence and good horsemanship help to mitigate those concerns. Again, large masses of infantry are very dangerous to charge into head-on (these foot-soldiers were isolated) but it is clear that a knight had options open to him that did not include impaling himself or his horse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:See, this is what I was thinking and was wondering why infantry would ever run from cavalry, unless horribly, horribly outnumbered. I was picturing some early modern General Melchett sending wave after wave of cavalry over the comically large piles of dead horses, because after 18 charges, it'd be the last thing they'd expect. The Romans actually tightened up when faced with horse archer attack. They did the famous testudo that Hollywood tends to misuse, and then were scattered by the cataphracts when they charged. It helps to note that the Roman infantry were armed with short swords that would have made it very difficult to fight cavalry, especially such heavily armoured cataphracts. As a dude on the battlefield, you run from cavalry because you don't want to die? It's not exactly intuitive thought to stand perfectly still while a big man on a big horse comes at you with a big lance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Romans actually tightened up when faced with horse archer attack. They did the famous testudo that Hollywood tends to misuse, and then were scattered by the cataphracts when they charged. The testudo is meant to protect from missile attacks, right? How does Hollywood misuse it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Romans actually tightened up when faced with horse archer attack. They did the famous testudo that Hollywood tends to misuse, and then were scattered by the cataphracts when they charged. I've always wondered why the Romans didn't adopt the phalanx in the east. That would have been a great counter to the cataphract, and it's not like they lake the discipline or the manpower to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:I've always wondered why the Romans didn't adopt the phalanx in the east. That would have been a great counter to the cataphract, and it's not like they lake the discipline or the manpower to pull it off. I don't reckon a phalanx would be very useful against the Parthians - it strikes me as far, far too slow and unwieldy to engage horse archers. Cataphracts might be dissuaded from a frontal charge, but those soldiers are still gonna take it from constant bombardment and if they break, then the entire formation is pretty useless. I think I'm correct in saying that the phalanx only functions as intended in relatively enclosed areas like the mountainous portions of Greece.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:The testudo is meant to protect from missile attacks, right? How does Hollywood misuse it? They just use it whenever. The only movie I can name right now is "The Eagle", where they go all testudo against a bunch of Britons who are just running at them, not even throwing javelins or anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae9Pj2JIero VanSandman posted:I've always wondered why the Romans didn't adopt the phalanx in the east. That would have been a great counter to the cataphract, and it's not like they lake the discipline or the manpower to pull it off. Well the Seleucids were avid phalanx users, but the Parthians kicked the poo poo out of them all the way to Syria. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Is it true that Vikings occasionally used massed spearmen against archers, with a thick forest of spears to help deflect arrows?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is a question with no right answer, but I'd like to know: What are some of your favorite military-related songs? Folk songs or marching songs, it doesn't matter. What HEGEL posted up-thread is a great example. I know it's rather cliche, but I'm going to have to go with this classic: http://youtu.be/e8-sMJZTYf0
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
The Spanish Civil War had some amazing songs and i'll post them here Long live the Fifth Brigade! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QnH5i4EROw The Army of the Ebro, song about one of the most decisive battles of the civil war and certainly the bloodiest defeat of the Republicans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4a4OB1AW0 Canto nocturno en las trincheras (The nightly song in the trenches) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM4KPMx-Pxs Marcha de las Brigadas Internacionales (The march of the International Brigades https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y72wj5c2wkM No passaran was the war cry of the Republic against the fascist attack on Madrid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwLLdqR5BFE Si Me Quieres Escribir. "If you want to write me you'll find me on the front-lines, if you want to eat well and cheaply just come here, the moors will offer you grenades and shrapnel you'll never forget  "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ug0nZ1pRY A German anthem to the brigades https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7CvLJx_Ek There's more songs, if there's one thing that's not lacking is war songs of the Spanish Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Honestly I'm starting to wonder if we could do with a Soviet Cultural Highlights thread. I've created this thread now, in PYF: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3585505 People who enjoy songchat and other recommendations should go check it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
So on melee cavalry, if I'm reading it right, you got the following main roles: -Mobility, unlike infantry you more or less get to pick and choose where you're fighting, which lets your side exploit any vulnerabilities in formation. -Intimidation, because you have a big guy, on a big horse, and they're both moving towards their opponent at a terrifying speed, which could break less trained formations if a significant chunk of their line lose their will to fight on, especially if whoever they make first contact with are probably going to die. -Momentum, heavily armored cavalry can use the momentum of the charge to smash their target, then rely on superior equipment on both man and horse to win through. So basically you look for weak spots and either harass or hammer through, depending on your loadout. Is that right or am I missing something crucial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
brocretin posted:I don't reckon a phalanx would be very useful against the Parthians - it strikes me as far, far too slow and unwieldy to engage horse archers. Cataphracts might be dissuaded from a frontal charge, but those soldiers are still gonna take it from constant bombardment and if they break, then the entire formation is pretty useless. I think I'm correct in saying that the phalanx only functions as intended in relatively enclosed areas like the mountainous portions of Greece.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
veekie posted:-Momentum, heavily armored cavalry can use the momentum of the charge to smash their target, then rely on superior equipment on both man and horse to win through. Ish. Cue our resident historians debating the point. (I fall on the Hegelian perspective, for what it's worth.) Those aren't the 'roles' though. Cavalry fits into a few different roles. Your earliest western cav. are the Greek cav of Xenophon. Basically their role is to be the 'rock' to a peltast's 'paper' to which the hoplite is 'scissors.' Modulated by conditions on the field. Additionally, the threat of a cavalry attack (mostly with javelins, except against a broken formation) would encourage enemy hoplites to stay in formation. Thus, even if your side lost, you cavalry could stick around and keep the enemy from pursuing. If, however, you win, a cavalry advantage turns a retreat into a rout and a rout into a slaughter. More or less, cavalry is not a decisive arm, but it will either mitigate a loss or turn a victory from 'making them all run away' into 'they're all deal let;s go take their stuff.' This is why the Greek mercs under Cyrus were so despondent. They had just proven that they could easily handle most or less the worst the Persians could throw at them. But they were relying on Cyrus and his allies for cavalry support. Basically, they knew they could win, say, 9 out of every 10 fights.* But in each of those 9 fights, the enemy would be able to run away, regroup, and try again later. Meanwhile, that tenth fight would, inevitably, be a horrific loss.** Then, starting around Alexander,*** you start to see the shock role come into play. At various points people are going to point to spurs or stirrups or lances or bigger horses or better armor as The Thing that lets this happen at various times, but inevitably someone realizes that if you point your horsie at a big mass of men, sometimes those dudes don't want to hang around. Convincing the enemy to Not Hang Around has always been the way you won fights (not, as is commonly assumed, making him Be Dead), and as a bonus, being on a horsie meant that you're in prime position to chase everyone running away in terror, and thus completing the self-fulfilling prophecy that states that 'if a horse is charging at me, I'm about to have a really bad day.' This pendulum swings a bit as either trained men or trained cavalry find primacy, but shock cav sticks around, at least in some capacity, until at least Napoleon. A third mode is that of the 'gently caress you, I'm on a horse' variety. This is the Egyptian/Hittie/Chinese chariot, early Japanese warrior caste, the typical steppe raider, and the caracole. Basically, ride in close enough to shoot at the enemy (bonus points if it's some poor pleb who can't even afford a horse of his own) and then run away while you reload/consider trying out the whole 'shock' thing now that the enemy is picking arrows out of his armor. Finally, we get the mounted infantry, who have horses but decide to fight on the ground. From a strategic perspective, you can have an all mounted force, ala the chevauchee or the Mongols (ignoring that the mongols were also quite capable of incorporating levies from conquered territories and extensive siege trains...), cavalry and scouts or screens to keep scouts away from your own forces, cavalry as messengers, etc. etc. *Numbers totally made up. **Citation: Xenophon. Admittedly, he's a total cavalry fanboy (not the least because gently caress you poors who can't afford horses), but he's not really wrong here. *** We're talked 'western' tradition here, so basically Greek until you hit Roman and then ~400 AD we can talk about Franks and Germans as they 'civilize,' everyone else is stereotyped as Always Already being as they were when they were first encountered by the West. (Yes, I'm abusing always already. Sue me.) Also, scythed chariots were a thing that filled this role, but shut up, we're going with the western centric narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Hey Rodrigo, HEGEL, and company? Y'all missed a couple relevant threads: The History Book Thread! Ask Me About The Early History of Islam Great thread, by the way. I liked the ethics questions you got the first few pages, so: What is the most important lesson we learned from the World Wars? Don't draft a punitive peace treaty and then fail to enforce it? edit: and what do you make of the concept of the Highland Charge? basic steps that I can discern are: 1 get as close to the Brits as you can without getting made (less than 100 yards if possible) 2 bellow and run up to like ~50 yards or so 3 fire volley 4 drop muskets, draw sword 5 charge home ASAP, hopefully under the cover of your own gunsmoke Was it actually a useful tactic for the Scots irregulars (were they irregulars?)? e2: it didn't work too well at Culloden, certainly. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What is the most important lesson we learned from the World Wars? I don't think the World Wars taught as much as you think. The Bomb is the reason World War II was the last direct fighting between superpowers, not any particular lesson. I'd say a lesson that should have been learned is "don't base your doctrine on the outcome of the last war", but that's one that few nations ever follow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:31
|
|