|
I will rephrase my question from earlier. When did mass boot camp begin. As in dedicated facilities instead, and a uniform curriculum.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted: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. I dunno, not letting a morphine addict run your war industry is a pretty good lesson from WW2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Cavalry question: I've heard it asserted that the Hakkapeliitta, Finnish light cavalry, didn't actually exist and weren't actually used by Gustavus Adolphus. Is there any truth to either their existence or their definite disproof? There were three cavalry regiments from Finland in the Swedish army, so they did exist as a thing. However, the regiments were pretty much the same as the rest of the Swedish cavalry. There's a lot of myths involved with them but I don't think any contemporary Swedish source thinks of them as anything else than just cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Cavalry question: I've heard it asserted that the Hakkapeliitta, Finnish light cavalry, didn't actually exist and weren't actually used by Gustavus Adolphus. Is there any truth to either their existence or their definite disproof? There's never been a cavalry type called Hakkapeliitta. The name was invented by Finns later. At Gustav II Adolf's time the typical western European cavalry tactic was Caracole, where cavalry rode in a circle before the enemy and shot it with pistols, and when enemy was weakened enough they charged. Typical Polish cavalry tactic at that time was the classical charging with lances. Before Sweden joined the 30 Year's War it had fought for a long time against Poland, and Gustav II Adolf took a liking to their aggressive charge tactics, and combined it with Caracole, so that his cavalry would charge with pistols. He wasn't the first commander to use pistol wielding cavalry in charges, but he used them so widely that their use has become somewhat connected to him. Of course we have to remember that Gustav II Adolf didn't use unsupported cavalry charges, but combined arms. Kingdom of Sweden's non mercenary cavalrymen were volunteers from Sweden or Finland (not sure if other parts of the realm had the allotment system) that rich landowners equipped to get tax reductions. Their horses were small farming horses, not muscular brutes bred by Polish or Habsburg noble families for generations, so they probably wouldn't have been very effective in traditional charges. I don't know if the quality of non mercenary Swedish troops was really better than the mercenary troops, but the amount of non mercs in larger battles was only about 20% of all troops, so it didn't matter that much. They were thought to be more reliable, so they were used in garrisons and on battle fields they served with the king on the right flank. TLDR: Finland was part of Sweden and Finns equipped cavalry that was used by Gustav II Adolf. The name Hakkapeliitta for those troops is later invention. Edit: /\/\/\ 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
veekie posted:So on melee cavalry, if I'm reading it right, you got the following main roles: There's flanking or attacking from the enemy's rear, which falls under what you've listed. Also ambushes, as well as pursuit of a retreating enemy. And scouting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Their horses were small farming horses, not muscular brutes bred by Polish or Habsburg noble families for generations, so they probably wouldn't have been very effective in traditional charges. I read a book about the Great Nordic War recently, back then the average height for a horse taken into service was 140 centimeters. Which is more like a pony than a horse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:You poor bastard you posted too well! Now look at you. In short - horrible. Close street fighting, starvation, cold, brutality. Battles were fought over single houses, sometimes rooms. The Germans called it Rattenkrieg for a reason. The philosophy of the Eastern Front was exemplified at Stalingrad. If you look at pictures of the battle, specifically of the city itself, you can see that the actual physical city was annihilated. The battle was fought over the fractured corpse of a city. Book-wise I would suggest definitely starting with Beevor. EDIT - removed LLOS. The Stalingrad Protocols by Jochen Hellbeck is written in German, but it has interviews with Red Army soldiers present at Stalingrad. A quick google search for first hand accounts also brings up several - including diary entries, which, due to censorship of letters, are often more candid about life in the kessel. For example http://cbweaver.wikispaces.com/file/view/Stalingrad+Primary+Accounts.pdf I have to say, my area of expertise is not Stalingrad - I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan - so take my recommendations with a grain of salt and I am sure someone will have an even better bibliography! haakman fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
I think Beevor pointed out that Last Letters From Stalingrad was mostly made up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:
Thanks, that clears that up nicely. Do you know if the battle cry is also apocryphal, or is that a real thing? To add some content of my own, there's an interesting bit in this text about Australian aboriginal semi-ceremonial warfare: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aus/cat/cat.htm quote:THEIR mode of fighting is most cruel. They have long spears barbed in rows and, sometimes double rows for one foot from the point. In the case of a quarrel between two men, they stand about 20 paces apart, and each throws his spears at the other's thighs. For warding off these spears each warrior has a shield made of light wood, which is used with the utmost dexterity. After a few turns they close in, and each man offers first his left thigh to the other to be stabbed with the larger spear. This they continue in turns, and the one who falls first is the vanquished, but often the combat ends in a free fight in which many men are wounded. The relatives grow angry and resentful as the combat proceeds, and then clubs, firesticks, stones, etc., as well as spears are used. The victims are sometimes crippled for a few weeks and suffer greatly. Charcoal is rubbed over the wounds to keep the flies off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
I would like to hear about brilliant moments in Spanish military history. Since the 16th century Spain has pretty much been in a slow depressing decline. Someone named after a Spanish national hero is bound to know something good about that. In return, I'll offer a fun story I know related to my question. There's a metro stop in Madrid called Guzmán el Bueno. It's named after a nobleman whose son was kidnapped by the moors during the reconquest. When Guzmán showed up to fight, the enemy brought out his son and said they'd kill him unless Guzmán stood down. In response, Guzmán tossed over one of his own knives and told them to go ahead. Which they did. Father of the year. For that he is forever known as Guzmán the Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
I think the conquest of the new world was when Spain really shined and punched above her weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I think the conquest of the new world was when Spain really shined and punched above her weight. Spain was the weight of the 15th century though, everyone else was trying to pull themselves up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I would like to hear about brilliant moments in Spanish military history. Since the 16th century Spain has pretty much been in a slow depressing decline. For a hundred years prior to this battle, Spain's infantry had been the best in Europe. Under Philip the Second its military budget alone surpassed the entire budgets of most other heads of state, and its army was very well trained. (For instance, they could move at the blistering speed of four and a half miles per day!  ) Under the administration of the Duke of Alba, a hard as gently caress shot caller who may have been a douche but he got poo poo done, the officers of the Army of Flanders were commoners or members of the impoverished lower nobility, many of them former common soldiers, promoted by merit. The Count-Duke of Olivares, prime minister from 1621 to 1643, reversed this policy, promoting only higher nobles. Ironically, since none of them actually wanted to be there or enjoyed army life, he secretly diverted funds from the intelligence budget to give them kickbacks. The quality of officers, predictably, declined, but Spain's tercios were still among the best infantry in Europe. We can see both of these factors on display at Rocroi, where most of the high command fled within half an hour of the first engagement, refused to commit cavalry reinforcements to the Spanish infantry, and possibly forgot to order them to retreat. (The only Spanish high officer in the field who knew anything about anything, the ill and elderly Count of Fuentes, there for the sole and specific purpose of telling the Duke of Albuquerque what to do since he refused to listen to anyone who wasn't at least as well-born as he was, died early in the fight. Turns out if you're carried to the field in a litter, you're somewhat visible.) So from eight in the morning until ten, the tercios stood under artillery fire--which is quite rare in this period, it's usually a defensive weapon or used for sieges--and repulsed four French cavalry charges. (Their German coworkers meanwhile, seeing what was coming, had already surrendered.) The Duke d'Enghien (who would later level up as Conde) eventually gave the tercios surrender terms like those given to an enemy fortress, and they left the field with their flags flying and their weapons in their hands. "It's time to act like what we are," said the Duke of Albuquerque just before the battle began, and he was right--both the Spanish noble officers and the Spanish infantry acted exactly like what they were. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:The Battle of Rocroi. Spain's performance here (they lost) wasn't the result of "decline," which is a term I don't like since it can have a lot of teleological baggage attached to it, but of specific poor decisions made by the government. Can't talk about Rocroi without posting this. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can't talk about Rocroi without posting this. Or this, which appeared in the Alatriste movie and, in this video as in the movie, is being played by members of that regiment's descendant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcXCRJ8Biao
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Or this, which appeared in the Alatriste movie and, in this video as in the movie, is being played by members of that regiment's descendant. this is the recording you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dIxrk8rDU edit: brozozo posted:Can't talk about Rocroi without posting this. In this picture there seem to be a lot of narrow-bladed rapiers. Was that correct battlefield weaponry? The one complex hilted sword I've handled was from about 50 years earlier, but the blade was wide and the point more spatulate than this delicate taper. I think it was a cavalry sword, of course, so that might make a difference. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:this is the recording you want: quote:In this picture there seem to be a lot of narrow-bladed rapiers. Was that correct battlefield weaponry? The one complex hilted sword I've handled was from about 50 years earlier, but the blade was wide and the point more spatulate than this delicate taper. I think it was a cavalry sword, of course, so that might make a difference. It does look awfully reenactory though. Like the Spanish version of those crystal-clear pictures of the American Civil War and such. Edit: The third guy from the left in the foreground in Las Lanzas (which everyone should study deeply, as according to Picasso Velasquez may be the best painter for faces in the world) has a long thin sword, but it's sheathed. But look at the guy in cloth-of-gold with the olive-green cape, behind Spinola, almost obscured by the horse, with his back to us and his left elbow up and out. Is that a very thin sword in his hand? 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Tell me about WWI artillery strategy. How was it planned, coordinated etc, what patterns of hits were they trying for and what kind of "on call" fire support was available?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Spain was the weight of the 15th century though, everyone else was trying to pull themselves up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Is that played by Soria 9, though? It's just not the same unless it's being played by the same regiment. Yes, I bought the correct version from amazon and that is it. Hell, a minute listening to the end credits of Altriste could tell you it was the same. quote:But look at the guy in cloth-of-gold with the olive-green cape, behind Spinola, almost obscured by the horse, with his back to us and his left elbow up and out. Is that a very thin sword in his hand? I don't know. judging by the way the hilt is directed and the way his fingers are positioned it seems that we are looking at an edge-on view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I don't know. judging by the way the hilt is directed and the way his fingers are positioned it seems that we are looking at an edge-on view. Edit: Now that I think of it, I have no idea what cloth-of-gold-guy is doing. Imagine yourself in that position. Is it comfortable? Does it even make sense? Yeah, let me just lean against this animal, throw my elbow waaaay back, look up and to the left, and fiddle with my weapon, no big. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:You can see a hilt? I can't see anything, just his fingers. What about Spinola's sword? (The Wikipedia entry for this painting has the picture in huge, if you want.) ah, that's the cuff of his sleeve, sorry. Still, the way his fingers are pinching makes me think we are looking edge-on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
A word on a (mostly) WW2 phenomenon known as assault guns. When it comes to big clunky chunks of steel, tanks tend to get all the attention, and subsequently assault guns sometimes get portrayed as badly designed tanks, which is a horrible and misleading misconception. What I'd like to show is that assault guns were a broad category of armoured fighting vehicles designed on varying budgets and for varying roles. I'm taking it as granted that when I say 'assault gun', you will understand that I mean a tracked vehicle with a fixed superstructure, rather than a tank with a 360 degree rotating turret. What's less clear is the difference between an assault gun and a tank destroyer (whether Panzerjäger or Jagdpanzer). NOT to be confused with US tank destroyers which had rotating turrets. The term 'assault gun' comes from German 'Sturmgeschütz'. It's a good name for the initial design, if not so much for what it eventually became: the first StuG was intended for direct fire support of infantry assaulting enemy positions. Strictly speaking, the first tanks until FT-17 were assault guns, as they had no fully rotating turrets (though you could excuse the models with sponson guns - the land battleship approach). But why would you support your infantry with such things instead of proper tanks, you ask? Well! Tanks require lots of scarce resources, and German doctrine dictated that true tanks should be concentrated in tank divisions that acted as the offensive spearheads, rather than spread evenly among the infantry divisions as was more the case in the French army. Germany couldn't afford both spreading tanks across all infantry divisions and forming big Panzer divisions, so they went for the budget option: assault gun battalions. StuG III was based on the Panzer III chassis, but was cheaper to produce (and upkeep) without all the complicated turret mechanisms, and at the same time could hold a larger gun than the Panzer III turret and turret ring (at the time) could carry. The original 75mm L/24 gun was just fine for reducing infantry strongpoints. The lack of machinegun was inconsequential as the AFV was meant to act together with supporting infantry. It could, in theory, engage enemy light armour, but it wasn't its purpose at all. It would be at a disadvantage when doing so, as the gun had only a limited horizontal traverse, so close cooperation between crew members was required.  Germany went into Adolf's War poorly prepared, and it soon became obvious that even a 50mm high velocity anti-tank gun was barely adequate when facing tanks as heavy as Matilda II, T-34 or KV-1/2. Not only was the production of long 75mm anti-tank guns inadequate in 1941, the production of the heavier Panzer IV chassis wasn't picking up nearly enough (and Panzers VI and V were still far away from completion). Pz III turret ring just couldn't carry the 75mm high velocity guns (at first L/43, then L/48), but the chassis itself was more than sufficient to house the much heavier gun. So abracadabra, the assault gun becomes a tank destroyer, supposed to ambush approaching enemy tanks and swiftly change position... yet still gets called as an assault gun. Which makes sense, perhaps, as the basic job of assault gun battalions remained the same. But with great power comes a great responsibility: German Panzer reserves were always on the low side, so the assault gun/tank destroyers often had to stretch to act as panzers as well. Which they did more or less badly, depending on how good their crews were. Late in the war, there were also some changes - one in three StuG platoons was to be equipped with 105mm gun for added HE firepower, and as Panzer IV went out of fashion the chassis was turned into StuG IV. At the same time, Panzer divisions had become so depleted that sometimes tank battalions were fitted with assault guns.  Panzerjägers were a related development. Germans had plenty of captured French and Czech tank frames to work with, and some of these were turned into self-propelled anti-tank guns, or Panzerjägers, tank hunters. They were open topped vehicles acting in place of anti-tank guns but able to reverse out of positions immediately after exposing themselves, thus avoiding the inevitable retaliatory barrage that a dug-in infantry anti tank gun battery would have had less luck with, even if they were motorized rather than relying on horses. Some of these were absolute mongrels - Russian gun on a Czech chassis and so on.  In addition, late in the war there were the Jagdpanzers - including Jagdpanzer IV (based on Panzer IV), Jagdpanther (based on Panzer V Panther) and Jagdtiger (based on Panzer VI - you guessed it - Tiger). These were basically equivalent to the StuG but geared more for offensive anti-tank warfare than supporting infantry. In the case of the long barreled Jagdpanzer IV (75L/70), the Jagdpanther (88mm) and the Jagdtiger (128mm), the base models also wouldn't have been able to carry such heavy anti-tank guns. Logically StuG should have been called Jagdpanzer III from 1942 on, as that's what it became. However, this was a design dictated by necessity, rather than design by preference. Beggars can't be choosers.  TL;DR: Early war German assault guns were mobile infantry support platforms. Mid and late war they took the additional role of tank hunters, when they weren't straight up used as tank replacements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:But look at the guy in cloth-of-gold with the olive-green cape, behind Spinola, almost obscured by the horse, with his back to us and his left elbow up and out. Is that a very thin sword in his hand? José Leonardo's La rendición de Juliers gives a better range of swords, though it's kinda dark, so click on the image for the full size. The men at the front clearly have wide-bladed side-swords which is what I'd expect but the guy in the background clearly has a narrower blade. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:[cool post on WWII assault guns and turretless tank destroyers] I forget if this was posted in the last milhist thread or a different one, but this guy was mentioned in relation to this topic, as a lot of Panzerjagers were his "designs", to the extent that you can really call an improvised vehicle mating wildly disparate parts that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Becker Nazi Germany really pushed it to the limit with pressing captured materiel into service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Tell me about WWI artillery strategy. How was it planned, coordinated etc, what patterns of hits were they trying for and what kind of "on call" fire support was available? Artillery doctrine in WW1 was awful and is a huge contributor as to why it devolved into trench warfare. There was no on call fire support until after the Somme and even then it depended on telephone wires to the rear not being damaged or cut which they nearly always were. Modern artillery shells were still new at the time and not well understand yet. Thus generals believe that if one fires enough shells, you'll blast the enemy away allowing your troops to waltz over no man's land. However, trenches and dugouts render this ineffective despite weeks long bombardment of enemy lines. When troops go over, the enemy simply leaves his dugouts, remains his machine guns and mows down your troops as they try to scramble through what was once a field filled with wire and bomb holes. Meanwhile your artillery has begun to bombard the enemy's second trench line as the theory assumed the front line would be easily taken, which it usually was actually. So you got your troops in the enemy's front trench, they're supposed to begin assaulting the second line so artillery moves onto the third line. Except hardly anyone is dead in the second line and thus reman their trenches quickly and the attack bogs down. At this point someone usually runs back, reports about needing help at the second line and artillery is shifted there, killing Germans and friendly troops as well since their usually hugging the lip of the second trench line. German reinforcements rush forward and retake the first trench and the whole shitshow starts over again. After the Somme things like creeping barrages begin to see usage which allows the troops to basically be walked in by a wall of shell fire which does actually work quite well. Unfortunately, generals are still attacking on too narrow of a front, with no overwhelming superiority in men or material and with no element of surprise. Which works for gradual pushing back of small sectors of the front but is never going to result in the strategic breakthrough needed for a return to mobile warfare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
I never quite understood how planes could fit cannons and machine guns right next or even behind the blades of the engines without blowing said blades to hell. I guess there's a delaying mechanism that stops the blades when you shoot, but how do you make sure the blades don't stop in front of the guns and wouldn't said delay cause the plane to lose speed and energy?Pornographic Memory posted:I forget if this was posted in the last milhist thread or a different one, but this guy was mentioned in relation to this topic, as a lot of Panzerjagers were his "designs", to the extent that you can really call an improvised vehicle mating wildly disparate parts that. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Mans posted:I never quite understood how planes could fit cannons and machine guns right next or even behind the blades of the engines without blowing said blades to hell. I guess there's a delaying mechanism that stops the blades when you shoot, but how do you make sure the blades don't stop in front of the guns and wouldn't said delay cause the plane to lose speed and energy? The trick is to time your firing mechanism so you can only shoot when you won't hit the propeller. This took a while to work out, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:The trick is to time your firing mechanism so you can only shoot when you won't hit the propeller. This took a while to work out, actually. And before then you'd armour plate your rotor blades so the bullets didn't damage them. Hope you don't get deflections back into the engine or your own face!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Mans posted:I never quite understood how planes could fit cannons and machine guns right next or even behind the blades of the engines without blowing said blades to hell. I guess there's a delaying mechanism that stops the blades when you shoot, but how do you make sure the blades don't stop in front of the guns and wouldn't said delay cause the plane to lose speed and energy? The interrupter gear doesn't stop the blades when you shoot, which would disastrous. It syncs the gun with the propellor so that shots can only be fired when the blade is in a certain, non-blowupabble position. This way you can change the speed of the propellor without having to worry about getting your shots off. Fokker figured this out around 1916. Before then, like a lot of WWI tech, was a bunch of insane ideas that people tried to use. The French were partial to the SPAD A.2, which featured a gunner's seat sited directly in front of the propellor. Another French invention was the "deflector plate" which was just a hunk of steel on the propellor blade so that any bullets would plink off. The British would tape their propellors and then just shoot through them. The tape prevented catastrophic splintering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:The trick is to time your firing mechanism so you can only shoot when you won't hit the propeller. This took a while to work out, actually. Boy oh boy did it ever.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear Edit: Slim Jim Pickens posted:Fokker figured this out around 1916. Before then, like a lot of WWI tech, was a bunch of insane ideas that people tried to use. The French were partial to the SPAD A.2, which featured a gunner's seat sited directly in front of the propellor. Another French invention was the "deflector plate" which was just a hunk of steel on the propellor blade so that any bullets would plink off.   :iamafag:See also, their trenches. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In addition, late in the war there were the Jagdpanzers - including Jagdpanzer IV (based on Panzer IV), Jagdpanther (based on Panzer V Panther) and Jagdtiger (based on Panzer VI - you guessed it - Tiger). The JagdTiger was based on the Tiger II. There was no tank destroyer based on the Tiger (unless you count the Ferdinand). Also, the coolest assault guns are easily the Soviet ones. One gun? Pah! Three guns!  Stalin didn't like having three guns, so one big gun!  Panther tank got you down? No problem, load high explosive!  Ferdinand giving you trouble? Blast him with a concrete penetrating shell, instead of penetrating the armour, it will just push half of the plate through the hull!  Maus on the horizon? Way ahead of you there, comrade, welcome the BL-8!  The Soviets tried all sorts of crazy poo poo with their assault guns, equipping them with guns up to 203 mm in caliber (but then realized those were dumb and didn't build any). I also wrote an article on medium assault guns, but aside from the double barrelled SU-122, there isn't really anything crazy there. Interestingly enough, there were no distinctions between assault guns, self propelled guns, and tank destroyers in Soviet nomenclature: even though the latter were unofficially called tank destroyers occasionally, the three types of vehicles were lumped together under the designation "SAU" (samohodnaya artilleriyskaya ustanovka, self-propelled artillery mount). VanSandman posted:The trick is to time your firing mechanism so you can only shoot when you won't hit the propeller. This took a while to work out, actually. Or just put the gun on the wings, or into the propeller axis!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Hello new thread! Just catching up now, and I've got a few replies. Rodrigo Diaz posted: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. Regarding cataphracts, history supplies an unexpected counter in the form of light infantry interspersed among opposing cavalry, for example in the battle of Strasbourg in 357 the Alamanni routed the Roman cataphracts with this strategy. Although I'm not sure if the historian who recorded this, Ammianus, was an eyewitness. According to his account the infantry hid amidst high grass and other ground cover to attack the bellies and legs of the Roman cavalry. Presumably for this strategy to work the Alamanni horse must have met the Roman's from a standstill, otherwise they would have separated from the infantry. Koramei posted:Whoah can someone elaborate on this? Someone else already brought up the Dahomey Amazons, so I'll just share a good article on them: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/09/dahomeys-women-warriors  The Dahomey women believed that by fighting they symbolically (literally? v0v) became male. Which is sort of weird because they were also married to the Chief, but whatever. I'm not familiar with Keegan or his argument. And the claim that "warfare," including logistics and economic supports, is a particularly male activity, seems hardly supportable. However combat itself, generally, does appear dominated by males, even among people like the aboriginal Australians completely isolated from Eurasian culture. That exceptions exist doesn't necessarily disprove that fighting war is a particularly masculine activity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Stalin didn't like having three guns, so one big gun! This is one of the few times that having a dictator approve everything works out. Stalin is shown the 2-3 gun prototypes that look like something from Red Alert and just reacts with 'What on earth are you people doing, just do one big gun!'
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:José Leonardo's La rendición de Juliers gives a better range of swords, though it's kinda dark, so click on the image for the full size. The men at the front clearly have wide-bladed side-swords which is what I'd expect but the guy in the background clearly has a narrower blade. Squalid posted:That exceptions exist doesn't necessarily disprove that fighting war is a particularly masculine activity. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Regarding cataphracts, history supplies an unexpected counter in the form of light infantry interspersed among opposing cavalry, for example in the battle of Strasbourg in 357 the Alamanni routed the Roman cataphracts with this strategy. Although I'm not sure if the historian who recorded this, Ammianus, was an eyewitness. According to his account the infantry hid amidst high grass and other ground cover to attack the bellies and legs of the Roman cavalry. Presumably for this strategy to work the Alamanni horse must have met the Roman's from a standstill, otherwise they would have separated from the infantry. Alexander use close light infantry support to tie up the Persian cavalry at Gaugamela. Its probably not used that often because you need really good light infantry to pull it off successfully. Of course when the Greeks say "light infantry" that mean a fighting style instead of the amount of armour a guy is wearing. The peltasts of Alexander's day were wearing the same armour as his phalangites, linothorax and helm. So maybe there is no similarities in the 2 situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:
What were their characteristics? I know the Germans tended to make deep, angled trenches and tended to make them as comfortable as possible, since they knew their soldiers would tend to hang around them or a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Mans posted:What were their characteristics? I know the Germans tended to make deep, angled trenches and tended to make them as comfortable as possible, since they knew their soldiers would tend to hang around them or a while. It varied greatly depending on where the line was. Allied (particularly British) doctrine was that trenches were just the start-line for the next offensive, so not much official thought was put into mandating a best-practice for trenches. Then you get the fact that there just aren't many German offensives in the West and there's no real learning by experience - what happens is the Allies try to emulate the German system from what they see of it in unsuccessful attacks but get crucial things wrong - which is partly why in 1918 they're still getting it wrong and large numbers of troops get caught too far forwards when Hindenburg makes his last throw of the dice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The interrupter gear doesn't stop the blades when you shoot, which would disastrous. It syncs the gun with the propellor so that shots can only be fired when the blade is in a certain, non-blowupabble position. This way you can change the speed of the propellor without having to worry about getting your shots off. Another even kookier approach used in French and German interwar designs was to place a gun within the engine, to fire through a hollow propeller hub. Here's Bf-109 with two synchronized 13mm mg's and a 20mm autocannon firing through the propeller axis. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Was that a short-lived device or did it carry on? I've never noticed it before. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 16:19
|
|