|
my dad posted:So, who's going to organize the bets for the next big "HEGEL vs Rodrigo Diaz" fight? You can actually see both main types of shields in use today amongst that last bastion of traditional melee combat: riot police. You have the large shields which are good for forming lines, blocking projectiles, and pushing people back, and the smaller, more maneuverable circular shields for snatch squads.
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Roughly what proportion of the French and English 100 years war armies were mounted? Is the answer basically "as many as possible" or "more as time went on"? Was there an idea ratio of mounted to unmounted that armies of this period strove for? And by mounted I don't just mean knights on destriers, I mean guys who are mounted for mobilities sake. Finally, does this apply to the rest of Europe or was the 100 years war a unique microcosm in regards to horse use? My understanding was that armies of the time are not assembled in terms of a real time strategy game sense of, hey, let's train a horseman. Rather, they reflected the social spread of the forces. The high class forces were the mounted knights, if they thought they could afford it, they'd drag some peasants away from their fields to come along. Or recruit some mercenaries if they were available. The exception might be the English focus on dismounted men at arms, with the various laws trying to ensure as many as possible could be called upon to fight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:War is really depressing. Does it ever get depressing reading about real people killing real people? If you are worried about depressing, avoid WWII eastern front stuff. That is some really harrowing poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Of course. That's why I personally prefer reading about restoring order and politics of post-conflict societies rather than about conflicts themselves. That way the lesson becomes "how to deal with violence and its legacy". Man, I find that far more depressing. War at least generally has an end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They didn't exist because you'd construct them at a siege. Untrue. The mongols used them at at least one battle. The romans too, had arguably ballistae as field artillery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroballista Their effectiveness was questionable however.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
veekie posted:How did the shift between close engagement and ranged engagement change through the ages? Mainly curious on the following: It's too easy to treat the progression of warfare as a linear timeline, when many different cultures took very different routes. For example, the mounted nomad archer subtype of army dominated the battlefields of many regions, even as early as Roman times. The chariots beloved of many ancient civilisations were also primarily archery platforms. The British longbow, though perhaps somewhat overstated in importance, meant that arguably the English transitioned earlier than the rest of Europe. The Japanese daimyos went from elite mounted archers, to massed spear toting peasants, to massed arquebuses, with all of the above coexisting. In terms of effective range, from personal experience, English longbows seem to be effective in the 100-300m range, depending on wind and elevation. Napoleonic firearms were generally used with most effect at about 100m. Artillery could reach further, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Whoah can someone elaborate on this? Tons of examples, but best documented is WW2 Soviet army.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
veekie posted:English longbows would be the upper end of muscle powered ranged then? How about rate of fire? Early firearms took a while between shots, but how did that compare rate wise between musketman, crossbowman and archer? For crossbows, you have to distinguish between the heavy (wind up) type of crossbow, and the lighter belly-pull crossbow. The former would probably require at least 30 seconds of winding. The latter can be reloaded in 5-10 seconds. Muskets seemed to take 20-30 seconds for a reload.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
The specific, deliberate dehumanization of the kind exhibited in full metal jacket was, iirc, a reaction to Post-WWII research, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:So, to give you some number, I have a book on eastern style archery here that mentions archer examinations where you're required to shoot 3 arrows within 12 seconds and hit the target at a given distance. There are videos of some guy on youtube that shoots at a much higher rate, but I wouldn't give much significance to such demonstrations. You can see that he uses a fairly light bow, nothing comparable to the drawweigth of a real warbow, which will range between 100-140# (and sometimes above that). I'd point out that in a battle situation, shooting accurately is generally less important than getting a whole bunch of arrows into a rough area at a given period of time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Yes and no, within 50m it's very well possible to target individual body parts. Arrows to the face are always good. A large number of guys with swords within 50m (typically charging at me) is very loving scary, and I would not be thinking about shooting him (let alone aiming at individual body parts), but either running the hell away or at least drawing my own melee weapon. Then again I suppose if there's something to stop them getting to me, it'd be different. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
I favour The Dark Night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Is_the_Night_%28Soviet_song%29 http://lyricstranslate.com/en/dark-night-dark-night.html-0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx0FYrm55Cg The Sacred War is also pretty good, though it cannot be more different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABby6nGIeHM (EDIT: Added a bunch of wikipedia and lyrics links) Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Here's an Soviet anti-war song I just discovered: "Do the Russians want a war?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8AfRpO8GXY Honestly, I had no idea there was enough to fill an entire article on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_and_poetry_of_Soviet_servicemen_deployed_to_Vietnam Fantom is especially catchy and quite metal, if a little racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78quF1msW-k Honestly I'm starting to wonder if we could do with a Soviet Cultural Highlights thread. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Hovermoose posted:I was wondering if anyone here is knowledgeable about modern land mines and how they affected warfare? For example how was mine field breaching done during world war II? For the Soviets on the Eastern front, there's basically three options. 1. In the better organised operations (e.g. Bagration), under the more humane commanders, you will get T34 flail tanks and copious numbers of engineers to clear the path for you. 2. You send a scout forward to capture a 'tongue'. I.e. some poor sod you beat up until he coughs up the locations of all the minefields. 3. If you get one of the arsehole commanders, then, well... You and the rest of the boys say your prayers to Marx and advance as though the minefield wasn't there. Some of you will get through, hopefully, and maybe the casualties you incur will be balanced by the element of surprise. Good luck! I'm not sure if the Germans ever developed a good anti-mine method. I believe anti tank mines did for a lot of German tanks at Kursk.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:"They marched their men through minefields!" was a very common thing to say to illustrate the cruelty of whoever you didn't like. The Soviets said it about the Tsarists, trash level popular "historians" said it about the Soviets, and yet no actual text of order on marching through minefields has ever surfaced. quote:There are two kinds of mines; one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a mine field our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there. The losses we get from personnel mines we consider only equal to those we would have gotten from machine guns and artillery if the Germans had chosen to defend that particular area with strong bodies of troops instead of with mine fields. The attacking infantry does not set off the vehicular mines, so after they have penetrated to the far side of the field they form a bridgehead, after which the engineers come up and dig out channels through which our vehicles can go. This might be a slur, but I think it's reasonably plausible. Minefields, at least in some cases, are not absolutely dense. The purpose here would not be to clear the minefield, but to preserve operational momentum, and not get into a situation where the enemy can react and you find yourself mine clearing under enemy fire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This description isn't quite accurate. The principle was to add some distance between the steel hull and the outer surface by adding a sufficiently thick non-magnetic layer, thus weakening the effectiveness of any magnets. The function of the ridges was to increase the thickness while keeping the zimmerit layer lighter (and presumably quicker to dry) than if it was an equally thick even layer. The British developed a similar device during the dark days after Dunkirk, for use by the Home Guard. For some reason it was not well liked! I recall an anecdote about a poor trainee, who somehow managed to get a live grenade glued to his trousers during training. He undressed swiftly, and therefore survived.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
How does what the Soviets experienced in their war in Afghanistan compare to the current US operations in that country?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
This question obviously cannot be conclusively settled. I find the polish perspective overall more believable. On the other hand, to play the devil's advocate, the Soviets are somewhat damned both ways - if they had hurried to liberate the city, they would be accused of trying to steal the nationalists' glory in retaking the city, thus increasing their influence in post war Poland. Further, if the Germans had withdrawn from Warsaw instead of expending considerable effort securing a city they were about to give up anyway, Stalin would have been left in a very much worse position for having delayed the advance, having allowed the Home Army a significant victory.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
This battleship focus plan is pretty silly, because it ignores that the planes are not just a carrier's offensive arm, but also its eyes and ears. A battleship force would be sailing essentially blind against a carrier force that is tracking its every movement, and thus able to engage at will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm sorry if this has come up before but I'm lazy. I will note that this applied only to the earlier armies of the Roman republic. The late Roman republic, and the Roman empire, from which most of the main lopsided victories date, discarded the hastati-principi-triari system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:What was a commander's role during the actual battle in the pre-modern era? Did they participate in the actual battle or did they stay way behind the lines? How did they direct maneuvers, or were lower level commanders mostly autonomous? Guys like Richard III and Harold II died during the battle, so I assume some commanders at least got involved in the actual fighting, but it seems to me like if you are fighting for your life, you can't really issue commands. So was it more a situation where you just pointed your armies at each other, told your subordinates what to do, and then just let it play out? It depends. Staying behind the lines, giving orders, is one of the advantages of the Mongols and the Romans over their enemies. However, participating in the battle yourself for many less professional armies is one of the main way leaders could motivate their men.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Why was the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium not repudiated after the First World War? Belgium not being able to coordinate with the allies until after a declaration of war against her was a major hindrance so why not remove it when the Germans are incapable of preventing it? Britain entered the war ostensibly to protect the neutrality of Belgium. Going back on that is unthinkable politically. Further, both Britain and France did not trust each other that much and did not want the other to gain an advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I was browsing some games on steam today, so forgive me if this sounds incredibly dumb, but one of the games is based on WW2 about torpedo boats, what interested me is this image: Yes, this happened. Also that's the T34-76 turret. http://hobbyport.ru/ships/bka_1125.htm http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...:en-US:official
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
The Geneva protocols on mercenaries is not just some idle nicety to obscure the truth. It is literally international law. It's what determines your legal treatment if you get captured. There is no way, as you seem to argue, to make yourself somehow not a mercenary by claiming you are motivated by patriotism or something. (By your definition, also, Ghurkhas are not mercenaries because they can be motivated by the citizenship benefits, or the goal of gaining reputation.)
Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:What is the consensus on the international brigades in Spain, then? The Condor Legion or the various pro-Republican forces were organized seperately from the locals, I think. Does the Geneva Convention treat ”adventurers” or foreign volunteers as lawful combatants? The Geneva conventions as applicable to prisoners of war deals significantly with only declared wars between states, not civil wars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Starting point: a year of attempting to clog the enemy's machine guns with corpses has failed. Lets think of something new! Generally infantry attacks in WWI are mischaracterized. For example, the slaughter at the Somme was essentially due to overestimating the effectiveness of the initial artillery bombardment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:I have no clue what's happening. I assume that both sides should be using their pikes' pointy ends instead of shoving each other like a bunch of rugby players? Jabbing each other with pointy sticks is generally frowned upon by health and safety inspectors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wouldn't consider Patton a bad commander. On the contrary, he was probably one of the few generals with the aggressiveness and mobile drive to match the likes of Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, et al. It's just that what's acceptable for a general in Nazi Germany isn't going to be acceptable for an army of a democracy. My opinion on Patton is always that he's the sort of commander that if his plans worked, then history would sing his praises, and if it failed, history would condemn him as the biggest idiot ever. I think he took too many risks given what the allied national priority was. While Guderian et al had a definite schedule (reach Moscow before winter! Knock the USSR out fast or we lose!), it is less clear to me what Patton's hastiness was meant to accomplish, given that victory was inevitable anyway. (You can speak of containing the Soviets, but that is not for Patton to decide.) quote:1. Is there any truth to the idea that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just part one of a longer-term plan to eventually invade Iran (or was it Pakistan) and therefore gain a port on the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea, or was that just a Clancy-fueled fever dream? It's a fever dream.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It's not that an impregnable fortress built in the 20th century couldn't stop the enemy army (for a while), it's that it wasn't impregnable. With WW1 experiences in mind, the French built the Maginot line, Germans built the Siegfried line, Soviets built the Stalin line, Finns built the Mannerheim line, etc. They all were breached. Any doctrine based on static WW1-style defenses failed during the war. WW1-style deep trenchlines worked if you lacked quickly reacting motorized reserves - the heavily fortified line gave time for your infantry reserves to reach the hotspots. Likewise if you didn't have adequate anti-tank weapons your infantry could take shelter inside their bunkers and let enemy tanks pass while taking potshots at their supporting infantry (hoping there were no bunker busting tanks). Otherwise you were better off with not getting fixated over any particular position. That is all well and good if you have those toys, and plenty of time to use them, but that is not always the case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone explain the strategic thinking behind Napoleon's campaign in Egypt? I've heard that it was an attempt to link up with the Tipu Sultan and smash Great Britain's influence in India, but wouldn't it have been simpler to ship Napoleon's army to India instead? Or was it merely an attempt to remove a popular general from the turmoil of Revolutionary France? The British Navy controls the exit to the Mediterranean, launching such an expedition without control of the seas is impossible. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Nov 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Anti-tank rifles were effectively used even during WWII, so I assume it worked. Well, for certain definitions of 'worked'.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:If I'm remembering my physics right (and that's a big if You aren't remembering your physics right. F = Mass x Acceleration. No way to calculate the force without knowing how long the acceleration of the bullet took.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 22:54
|
|
), that gun would generate about ~10.000 Newtons of force. That's a fair bit more than a very strong kick delivered by a human, applied to the user over a very short time period, so I could definitely see it dislocating or even breaking a shoulder under certain conditions.
|
I am a Statistics PhD... 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVWupFBkA8 Apart from the stuff already mentioned, Montgomery was also responsible for putting together the plan for Overlord (cancelling the earlier plan of 'hey, let's split our forces and land half the guys near Marseille, also just concentrate our forces on to a narrow beachhead, surely that can't go wrong!'), and correct in his criticism of the plan for the southern landings in Italy (He correctly foresaw that the Germans would basically ignore them and the result was that a bunch of Allied troops ended up days away from where the fighting was). Ultimately, Montgomery was a competent, not brilliant commander, but a lot of other commanders amongst the western allies weren't even that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In that context, how bad of a miss was it for his failing to close his part of the Falaise pocket? Not closing the Falaise pocket was a misjudgement (or a case of failure of communication?), but I think the effects are exaggerated. quote:What critics of Bradley's decision sometimes overlook is the fact that by escaping through the Argentan-Falaise gap, the Germans ran a gantlet of fire that stretched virtually from Mortain to the Seine. Artillery and air took a fearful toll of the withdrawing enemy troops. No one knows how many Germans escaped Argentan-Falaise and later Chambois. Estimates vary between 20,000 and 40,000 men. Not many more than fifty medium and heavy artillery pieces and perhaps that many tanks reached eventual safety. Radios, vehicles, trains, supplies were lost; "even the number of rescued machine-guns was insignificant." [41] All that remained were fragments of two field armies, the Fifth Panzer and the Seventh, which had effectively bottled up the Allies in Normandy during June and July, before the American breakout. The Allies took 50,000 prisoners in the Argentan-Falaise area; 10,000 dead were found on the field. [42] Those who escaped had still to reckon with the Allied forces at the Seine. An indication of the additional losses suffered by the Germans there may be found in the fact that seven armored divisions managed to get the infinitesimal total of 1,300 men, 24 tanks, and 60 artillery pieces of varying caliber across the Seine. [43] The German remnants east of the Seine, lacking armament, equipment, even demolitions to destroy bridges behind them, could do nothing more than retreat toward Germany. http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_17.htm The suggestion that Falaise was 'the battle that should have won WWII', from the title of one history book, is deeply hilarious. An extra 20-50k POWs sounds like a lot, but the Germans had 3 million men fighting on the Eastern front at the time. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
quote:I don't mean to say that the 2nd Alamein was just good luck on Monty's part, but the table was catered ready for him so that he could binge on the bits that he liked the most - elaborate battle plans. Once it came to the pursuit he failed in keeping up with the DAK. Montgomery might have been slow, but you don't see any western allied units overreaching and getting cut off, as happened to both the Germans and the Soviets on the offense. It is easy to critique Montgomery today in full knowledge of what the Germans had against him and where they were, but a general at the time has no such 'god's eye view'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Military grade body armour (with ballistic plate inserts) can stop AK rounds.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Re: Sandbags, also worth checking out is: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm Basically, sand seems to function with military rifles by causing the rounds to fragment. Basically the bullet going through the sandbag is effectively sandblasted into uselessness. Water will also function well at stopping bullets. Sufficiently thick metal will work. (A car door is just not sufficiently thick.) The rule of thumb, IIRC, is that the metal, if of equivalent hardness to your bullet, needs to be about as thick as the bullet is long. quote:Well I have no idea why I thought it was useless, then. Perhaps I was thinking of police armour, or reports I remember of soldiers being killed by small arms fire despite the armour? Thanks! Yes, police armour is generally less effective. Also, Vietnam/WWII grade armour is much less good too - the 'flak jack' is basically only designed for shrapnel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a broader WW2 note, why did the germans just...not give up? It seems that when the advantage is so overwhelming and you're being pressed from both sides, why not just surrender unconditionally to the western allies so the soviets don't end up with half your country? Why bother fighting right to the very end? The scenario where the Allies would accept Nazi surrender to the western allies alone is basically Gay Black Hitler territory, anyway. How would such an arrangement even work?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb57.htmquote:The fact that we are still firmly on our feet and show not the least sign of collapse is sufficient proof that our enemies cannot do what they want, that they suffer from internal problems, and that they make such terrible threats only to keep us from noticing that. It is well known that at the point during the First World War when the German leadership thought the situation was hopeless and prepared the Reich for capitulation, the British military leadership told its government clearly that England’s losses on the Western Front were so great that it was necessary to seek an agreement with Germany to end the war. If the leadership of the Reich had known that, it would have undoubtedly made a different decision than the one it blindly made. quote:To be entirely fair to Hitler, the alliance against him fell apart within weeks after his death. He just underestimated how much people hate him, personally. Er, what? Arguably friendly relations lasted into 1946, and certainly up to VJ day. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 00:26
|
|