Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›2 »

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

5 pages already? You loveable spergs, What have you been doing?

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?

Ensign Expendable posted:

I am a fan of the Soviet March of the Artillerymen.

My favorite Red Army Choir is the Song of the Volga Boatmen, although thats just a folk song.

I very much enjoy La Victoire est a Nous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RUPdkyqp0

I also personally like A las Barricadas, from the Spanish civil war, which specifically refers to the CNT-FAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3w3wMqdwg

# ¿ Nov 14, 2013 22:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:21

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

SeanBeansShako posted:

For the Russian Civil War, I quite like White Army Black Baron:
http://youtu.be/zZqVOFSYRWI

Death to the reactionary Bolsheviks :anarchists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcsYtHggelg

(White Army, Black Baron owns)

My favorite Latin American military tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlL7-KSFPx8
(Which ended up strongly associated with the dictatorships)

# ¿ Nov 14, 2013 23:21

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

a travelling HEGEL posted:

I'm aware of that. Ireland is part of the British Isles, and the people who wrote those songs were in the army of the British Empire.

Well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0yoo9B2Bc

And for good measure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHY14OVk7r0

# ¿ Nov 14, 2013 23:44

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Hovermoose posted:

Long story short: the sub was equipped with a new, high-tech deep water toilet ...
In the end the sub had to be scuttled with the loss of one hand.

RIP brave sailor who drowned in poo poo, hero of the Kriegsmarine

# ¿ Nov 18, 2013 18:07

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Frostwerks posted:

gently caress I was just about to request this. Something to the tune of "the Japanese fleet would have been witness to a slaughter".

A total slaughter. It would've made Dieppe look like an extremely well planned and conducted landing. I posted about this on the other thread (I can't link to that post because I'm not on a computer now), but I essentially summarised the appendix from Shattered Sword. To summarise my summary:
1. The Japanese did not have good landing craft, this would've been extremely problematic in the face of even light resistance.
2. There were numerous US forces on the island, a great proportion of which were Marines, who, regardless of formal role, were all trained infantry. For opposing a landing (especially a poorly conducted on as the Japanese would've been able to offer) basic training as a rifleman is all you need.
3. There are extensive reefs around Midway, which would've meant that the Japanese would have had to disembark at substantial distances (hundreds of metres in some approaches) and essentially wade to the beaches with absolutely no cover.
4. The US forces were very well dug in, and had taken very few losses on the ground. Even if exposed to a constant bombardment it is unlikely that it would cause enough damage to make up for the other Japanese disadvantages. Especially as the bombardment of Midway had proven to be very ineffective.
5. The Midway garrison had a lot of support weaponry (AA guns, HMGs, light guns) that could be brought to bear on the Japanese marines (who, remember, approach with no cover).
6. The Marines had tanks. Yes they were plinky little Stuarts, but a small number of tanks, no matter how light, are incredibly useful when your enemy not only has no tanks but no anti-tank weaponry.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2013 15:55

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

SeanBeansShako posted:

I think I'm going to treat myself to Shattered Sword as an early Christmas present.

I think that it is a good suggestion for people who just have even a passing interest in the Pacific. It is very well written and while there are some segments that do go into the engineering of ships etc., the conclusions from those bits are integrated smoothly into the narrative and if you don't want to read all the spergy bits you don't have to. It is also very accessible in the sense that you can go in knowing very, very little about the Pacific theatre (as in common knowledge basic), and the authors guide the reader through very clearly. It really is a very well put together history book, regardless of the subject.

As a Christmas gift (for yourself or for someone else) its a solid choice for anyone who's not intimidated by a history book.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2013 15:07

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

What matters to Italy is that it finishes the war on the right side. :italy:

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 12:46

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

On French WW1 uniforms;

French uniforms in 1914 were extremely similar to those that they had during the Franco-Prussian war, the differences are minor, and are related towards the adoption of more modern equipment. Cosmetically, they're almost identical.

Franco-Prussian war, 1870, Napoleon III imperial guard:

1914 infantry:

1914 Tirallieur uniform (practically identical to the 1870 uniform again):

1911 cavalry in parade dress:

1914 cavalry in field uniform:

Propaganda poster, but you can tell that the uniform quickly adopted in the winter of 1914-1915 was of a logical and much less ridiculous tone, also wearing the 1915 Adrian pattern helmet:

Bonus pic I had for some reason:

# ¿ Dec 10, 2013 10:49

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

SeanBeansShako posted:

It does look a lot like a Vickers.

Its an M.07/12, the grip is particularly telling. (Why do I know this)

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 20:56

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

statim posted:

http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Imperial-Conquest-Africa-1830-1914/dp/0253211786

A bit more on the academic side of things and not a very narrative history but decent writing and a compact overview of most of the highlights such as the First Italo-Ethiopian war aka the Battle of Adwa, aka modern Italy's ur-military gently caress up. Also lots of really neat steamboat river campaigns by the French.

Also was pretty hilarious to find out that the local French military types in Senegal had figured out the same thing that the Kwantung Army would but back in the 1850s. That is:
1. Cook up a border incident requiring immediate retaliation
2. Use as pretext to get around parent governments status quo policy
3. Wrap selves in flag and present the politicos back home with a fait accomplis and dare them to return the territory the army has bled for.

And oh yeah 4. Bite off way more then they could chew and scream for reinforcements until the whole frontier is a giant, bloody, resource suck on the mother country

An excellent specific study of a colonial conflict is The Kaiser's Holocaust, about the decimation of the Herero and Nama people in what is now Namibia. Kwantung Army hijinks are plentiful, and its an excellent read anyways for any WW1/WW2 buff.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8250985-the-kaiser-s-holocaust

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 01:24

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Yeah boiiiiii math owns (and physics etc)

Going to one of these fortresses and seeing it in person really helps contextualise it though. Once you see it there are so many questions which you will feel are dumb and easy. It's just a question of seeing it for yourself. I'm sorry I can't recommend any books but as long as you see one you will understand, there's really no other way to get closer to your question.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2013 00:00

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

SlothfulCobra posted:

Well that's what you get when a bunch of separate nations with their own rules and cultural differences joining together after the dictionaries have already been written.

Oh be quiet it works perfectly

# ¿ Dec 29, 2013 18:54

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

SaltyJesus posted:

"Macedonia? Oh, you mean Southern Serbia!" - every serbian ever
"Macedonia? Oh, you mean that part of Bulgaria that thinks they're a nation now." - every bulgarian ever

E: "Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria? They better return our clay!" - every macedonian ever

# ¿ Jan 16, 2014 10:47

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

DasReich posted:

No. Britain would have found an excuse anyway since their whole foreign policy hinged on a balance of power on the Continent. Fun fact! France was going to violate Belgian neutrality but the Germans beat them to the punch!

Where did you read this? The political French leadership completely opposed to violating Belgian neutrality, as they believed that would cause the Belgians to side with the Germans and perhaps even tip Italy to join in. In 1911 Joffre stated before the Superior Council of Defense that "If we violate Belgian neutrality first, we will become the aggressors. England will not join our side; Italy will have the right to declare against us." The French military also probed the British just in case, and received the expected response. France would therefore enter Belgium in the case of war, but only if Germany violated Belgian neutrality first.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2014 11:24

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

The Entire Universe posted:

How important were the famed Parisian taxis in the battle of the Marne? Was it something specific about the bravery of the drivers in comparison to military transport, or was it just the material contribution of hundreds of motor vehicles?

General Galliani dispatched a little over 10,000 soldiers from the Paris garrison to the front, of which around half were transported by taxi. The railway lines were at bursting point, and the army was also pushing its own motor pool to the limit. It was a small contribution, with five men per taxi, and taxis back then being rather slow (especially in comparison to trains), what was important was the propaganda aspect of the whole thing. I've never read anything about the drivers being particularly brave, but then again its not recorded anywhere that they refused to be dragooned into their new jobs, in which they risked the machines that employed them.

5,000 men surely didn't make much of a change in a battle that had 40+ divisions solely on the allied side, but it demonstrated how everyday workers of Paris were willing to do whatever they could to help, as well as giving the whole thing a bit of an air of drama.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2014 15:27

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Jackie Fisher was completely insane and could quote the bible for hours on ends yes, but it was also that insanity that the pre-war RN needed. The pre-Fisher fisher period RN was a disaster. It was a collection of mismatched ships that were spread all over the world, the only fleet of any value being the one in the Mediterranean. Gunnery was abysmal, with a 60%+ miss rate at 2000 yards, ships would steam at well bellow their capacity, and had frequent mechanical issues. Crews were still trained (and continuously drilled) for sail operations even though it was completely pointless. Officers were trained separately and there was great discrimination between the 'Executive' officers and technical officers, let alone the Royal Marines who were practically just run like its own insular mini-army within the RN. Old officers clung to their posts forever, often with having little to no actual command experience. Fishers first term as First Sea Lord changed all that. It took the RN to a combat-effective navy by 1914, rather than just a hodgepodge collection of ships that happened to outnumber everyone else.

Its dumb to reduce the reforms of the RN to just Fisher, and there is a myth in regards to that, but there are certainly strong real foundations for such a myth to occur.

e: and yes he was also a complete lunatic when it came to religion, but when it came to naval issues he was spot on

# ¿ Jan 25, 2014 14:15

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Yes, they aren't particularly good if you're a specialist on the period, considering how much important research the author ignored.

I recommend Marder

uPen posted:

I want to read the 'Castles of Steel' from an alternate universe that covers the Imperial German Navy going up against this navy.

The fact that the German Navy popped up as such a threat was actually because compared to everyone else their navy had always been poo poo before. Therefore there was no deep naval tradition and entrenched officers like in the RN, which caused more problems than anything else. It also meant that they were a lot more open in terms of officer selection, and there was a lot of innovation. Their fleet was also concentrated in Germany, because there really wasn't anywhere else that deserved more protection than some cruisers.

The RN would've modernized sooner or later, it was extremely unlikely that it was going to continue in the way it did.

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jan 26, 2014

# ¿ Jan 25, 2014 23:57

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

In all seriousness the ground-effect craft that the Soviets constructed made good sense. For the Caspian and Black Seas (and to a lesser extent the Baltics) it allowed the Soviets to vastly improve their naval projection power. A single A-90 could carry 30,000kg worth of supplies at 400 km/h, and the Lun-class could do 500km/h with six Moskits on its back (for comparison, the Sovremenny-class carries 8, and at speed the Lun could sortie, launch, and re-sortie before the Sovremenny even steamed out of port). A planned Lun-class variant would also serve as a hospital, essentially enabling the Soviet fleet to zip over a full hospital as soon as operations commenced, take on a ridiculous number of wounded, ship them back to port in a well-equipped platform, all in record time. They also made an anti-submarine one, that would've had VTOL capability, and speed all over the place, but it had (unsurprisingly for such a craft with VTOL) problems with its batteries and engines. The "Caspian Monster" had a take-off weight of 550 tonnes and reportedly did over 700km/h in tests.

Ekranoplans own

156m wingspan (the harrier in that picture is actually much too big)

:ussr:

# ¿ Jan 26, 2014 10:46

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Actually if you're looking for a general history of the period aimed at non-experts Massie is about the best you'll be able to find. I've just been working on a graduate-level thesis for so long I'm still in "my sources can beat up your sources" mode.

Marder on the other hand is excellent but you have to be careful with some of his claims because he took the griping and complaining of some particularly disaffected officers way too seriously (gently caress Herbert Richmond).

Yes there are some issues with Marder's work but they're also reprinting all five volumes due to the centenary so

:woop:

# ¿ Jan 28, 2014 10:19

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Alchenar posted:

You are perhaps really over-estimating the degree that motor engines were prevalent in Europe in the 1930's. They simply weren't.

The USA was the only country in the world in which a young man would be reasonable expected to have first hand experience of a car. Across Europe this was rare enough that when the war started and conscription began these people were rapidly sifted into tank/motorised/mechanic roles because there weren't enough to go around. In some of the more isolated parts of Europe there are people who would never have seen a plane before.

Indeed, in societies where motor vehicles are not wildly accessible for common people, being made a driver through conscription was quite good. I was reading about the Syrian army in the conflict with Israel, and being made a tank driver was one of the best possible jobs you could get. Not only would they teach you how to drive, but you would get qualified for heavy vehicles, which meant that once you left the army you could get a job driving a heavy tractor! As opposed to the vast majority who just got qualified on how to waste time and dig trenches.

Around 750,000 German horses invaded the USSR in Barbarossa.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2014 17:07

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

wdarkk posted:

Can't you do incredibly expensive Kevlar armor for them like they do for dogs?

Well I don't know, but we can sure as hell try. Take a look at my procurement proposal for horse armour that will create 150 jobs across 180 congressional districts!

# ¿ Jan 29, 2014 23:24

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

In actual military history news (how often does that happen!) Ferguson continues to add to the pile of evidence that makes his naming to Harvard inexplicable.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

e: vvv yes Gove's article is just one big :psyduck:

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jan 30, 2014

# ¿ Jan 30, 2014 11:59

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

European tactics and equipment were fairly irrelevant in terms of the conquest. Remember that Cortez and co. showed up with 1,000 - 1,400 men, of which only a few dozen were cavalrymen. Against this, the Aztec Empire/Triple Alliance could raise hundreds of thousands of men. Tenochtitlan was actually the largest city in the world west of Istanbul, far bigger than any city in Iberia. Cortez won because he leveraged the shock of European arrival to pull off a diplomatic coup amongst the peoples subjugated by the Aztecs and their allies. Tlaxcala, Totonac, etc. heavily resented being ruled from Tenochtitlan and were waiting for any chance to rebel. Add to this the fact that there was a lot of weird religious interpretations floating around the figure of Cortez as a God (either as Quetzalcoatl himself or as his emissary).

In fact, after scuttling his ships, Cortez and his men were set upon by thousands of Tlaxcalans, who managed to surround them, and according to Spanish records, would've probably wiped them out. Tlaxcalan elders, however, saw an opportunity in allying with the Spanish vs. Montezuma. Cortez essentially took over the alliance, and marched on the Aztecs, who actually greeted him peacefully at first. At this point in time, Cortez counted with a confederation of native allies that could put 200,000 men into the field, effectively matching the Aztecs in numbers. This is even without mentioning all the stuff that went down in Tenochtitlan, with a lot of domestic politics getting mixed into the mess.

Simply put, the narrative that the Spanish showed up and won due to gunpowder is completely wrong, the Spanish won the conflict through purely conventional means, much in the same way they would do so in the Old World.

e: vvv disease is relevant, yes, but before the disease happened the Spanish had already clashed on the field of battle with the natives, and had not magically won due to horses and guns.

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Feb 11, 2014

# ¿ Feb 11, 2014 00:26

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

alex314 posted:

I imagine that as long as Warsaw Pact forces keeped momentum everything would be ok

Up until the first supermarket they bump into at least

# ¿ Feb 17, 2014 10:08

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

Stuff about Argentina

Do you mind saying what school you go to? or at least if it is public/private and in what province? I had a different experience through my secondary education and barely had any history that related to Argentina or Latin America in my tertiary. Nobody ever told me that Pearl Harbour was a big conspiracy, for example, (although the myth relating to that was explicitly mentioned to point out how convoluted and ridiculous it was). Are you doing an outright history degree or is it a humanities field that has a bit of that mixed in?

# ¿ Mar 18, 2014 13:51

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Tekopo posted:

Don't you mean the Defence rather than the Defiance? Or did I get something wrong here.

No, you're right. HMS Defiance was the torpedo-schoolship for the RN, while HMS Defence was a Minatour-class that got sunk during Jutland. It had 4 9.2" guns so it would've been a big help to Cradock.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2014 16:58

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

It's also kind of funny that I had to look through English sources to find information regarding the Argentinian Forces in the Falklands War; military tradition here ends in the 19th Century I guess.

There actually has been quite a bit written on the subject, however there's a few issues. Firstly, there is not much of an audience for it, as the general population is obviously not interested very much in the minutea of the military actions of the conflict. Most of those who are interested in such matters are either veterans, military officers or historians. It is a very small amount of people, and the books that are published are not going to be found in your everyday bookstore (if you're in university you should be able to find some professor who knows what's up though). If you look, however, the books exist, a lot published by the colleges of each respective branch etc. The second problem, although not as important now as it used to be in the 80s, but yet very relevant due to the recent nature of the conflict, that there is still some propaganda and discrepant facts. The easiest way to avoid this is to not read anything published in the 1980s (either Argentine or British), unless you are reading it for the value of the text itself as a historical artifact (perhaps the viewpoints it puts forward or personal anectdotes, etc.). The harder way is obviously to read enough that you can cross-reference and develop enough of a grasp that you can spot when things start to go awry. Really though, even the official state narrative of the Argentine government has gotten quite close to "reality" (putting it in brackets as to qualify that I'm not automatically legitimizing the British narrative), with the only major discrepency in terms of military action is that the FAA still claims to have hit the HMS Invincible. Military history is, anyways, the easier issue to tackle there. The problem is the political and social contexts which produced the whole mess and there is still a lot of work to do regarding that. British texts especially are quite poor at this, although revised editions are better than the stuff put out in the 80s and 90s, however, there is still limited interest to look at the origins from the Argentine side by the part of British publishing.

This is, of course, completely aside from the tropes and such put forward in either country about the conflict by the respective governments and everyday media.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 13:31

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

The only book I personally own on the subject is Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba, written in 1987. I picked it up mostly out of interest due to the author dynamic, maybe I should give it a read.

I haven't read Signals of War, but I have heard good things. It was an early attempt at putting forward a balanced history, as evidenced from the two authors. Freedman has also written the Official History of the conflict for the British state. Its something I've been meaning to read and I would be interested to hear your views on it, especially if it is the first "proper" book you read about it (presumably if it is the only book you own, you might have read something in school though, idk). I can recommend things both in Spanish and English if you want.

Azran posted:

quote:
This is, of course, completely aside from the tropes and such put forward in either country about the conflict by the respective governments and everyday media.

Now this, I'm curious about it. Could you name some, if you don't mind?

I'm sure you can recognize a lot of the things which, at least, embodies the public discourse in regards to the Argentine side of things. Right now I can't effortpost but I could make a post about the conflict. It's not 100% military history but I still think that this thread might be the best place to put one, considering the lack of a Latin American politics thread anywhere.

Briefly, in Argentina at least, there is a clear discourse which you have to keep to (at least as far as politics go). Any questioning (i.e. not denial, but even merely positive questioning to examine one's own position) is de-facto prohibited. It's cheap nationalism and as far as the everyday discourse goes it is little more than a political smokescreen. Proper discussion of the war in Argentina will inevitably bring up social and political issues during the proceso, and that is still very uncomfortable to many people. It also brings up some uncomfortable comparisons in regards to the political discourse of some major parties (at least if you ask me).

In my opinion, the most interesting thing is how the conflict as a whole legitimized and entirely justified on the behalf of the Argentine nation (and in some cases even with Pan-Latino, anti-imperialist language). However, the action of the military government is illegitimate due to its obviously undemocratic and brutal rule, which strips it of any justification. Likewise, war is also bad, and one should always aspire to use the democratic way, but the war as a whole is not condemmed in terms that the conflict itself is also just, as the territory is legitimately Argentine. I'll try to make more of an effortpost at a later time, and I'm really interested in what other people have to say about this.

(Really enjoyed the Confederate lost-cause discussion by the way, good posts)

# ¿ Apr 5, 2014 10:27

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Fangz posted:

I do think that it's a little unfair to criticise the Sealion idea based solely on the plans as is. A more serious effort at invading Britain would probably have led to revision of the plans,

You can revise the plans all you want and make a perfect plan, but if you want to rectify the material issues, then you're going to have to wait. And by that I mean the very basic and most minimal requirements like a large number of single-engine high performance fighters that can reach past 2 minutes over London and landing ships that aren't hastily converted river barges crewed by people with no experience in naval operations let alone a contested landing. These points also do nothing to address the massive advantage of the Royal Navy or the ability of the UK to concentrate its ground forces against an enemy that at best would be trickling in.

Of course you could allow time for all of that and try to invade in Summer 1941 after a crash landing-barge building program and amphibious operations courses and well, good luck with all the poo poo that the British have built up by then.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2014 17:36

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

From left to right: F-111 with wings swept, U-2 (strung from ceiling), a Grumman Albatross, something I can't identify right behind it (possibly a B-58?), an F-105, B-17, B-52, F-4, B-36, P-80 hanging above to the left), F-86 (to the right) and an A-20.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2014 08:27

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

MrYenko posted:

OperationSeaLion.jpg

# ¿ Apr 13, 2014 15:46

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

DoubleAughtMeowMix posted:

Any suggestions on where to jump in online or in books to read about the evolution of 19th century naval warfare into what we see today as a person who is wholly out of touch with that aspect of combat?

Pretty much entirely the Royal Navy, but it should give you a (more than) good enough overview. It can get really technical though so if you are put off by that don't bother.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2014 07:51

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

When did the History Channel completely jump the shark and become solely about Hitler and/or Aliens? Also why do people keep watching it?

I remember when I was younger it used to show actual documentaries or old war films, the latter not being very educational but quite related to the subject matter at least I suppose. I haven't seen it in ages but it seems its turned into a joke? I remember when I lived in Canada, at the start of the time I lived there "the learning channel"/TLC used to show lots of documentaries and academic shows, then slowly just shifted to showing just home re-modelling shows and such.

# ¿ May 27, 2014 12:07

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

cheerfullydrab posted:

WW2, not WW1, but this reminds me how much I hate the narrative of "plucky little Britain" that stood alone post-Dunkirk, pre-Barbarossa. It was the world's largest Empire that ever existed, lead by an unelected demi-dictator, fighting against a gimcrack continental power run by incompetent genocidal nutjobs. Not the underdog, even in its supposed darkest days.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2014 16:23

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

2. Just what was it that Nathan Bedford Forrest did that was so special? I've heard it said that he was the progenitor of modern mechanized infantry or even blitzkrieg, but I can't see it from his wikipedia article.

Wikipedia posted:

Forrest was one of the first men to grasp the doctrines of "mobile warfare"[43] that became prevalent in the 20th century. Paramount in his strategy was fast movement, even if it meant pushing his horses at a killing pace, which he did more than once. Noted Civil War scholar Bruce Catton writes:

"Forrest ... used his horsemen as a modern general would use motorized infantry. He liked horses because he liked fast movement, and his mounted men could get from here to there much faster than any infantry could; but when they reached the field they usually tied their horses to trees and fought on foot, and they were as good as the very best infantry.[44]

Well according to this Catton fellow he invented the concept of mounted infantry.

Eat your heart out Babylon :agesilaus:

Also he was a slaveholder, massive racist and a key member in the early KKK, so there's probably a lot of "not a racist, but..." kind of people who exaggerate his accomplishments from good leader to inventor of air-land battle.

e: vvv obviously bad people can have good ideas, but it doesn't seem like Forest was some sort of transcendent battlefield genius, which doesn't take away from him being a good tactician and quick on his feet. I have no doubt that there are some people who are drawn to him and over-represent his importance due to his involvements in prolonging "the struggle" against the evil North or whatever. I don't know much about the American Civil War, but it is clear even to me that it is particularly filled with very romantic views of the CSA leadership. Not that this doesn't happen in a lot of other conflicts, but this whole sort of "Southern Gentleman" thing seems especially pervasive in this topic (whilst Grant was a horrible drunk and Sherman was totally a mass-murderer).

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Jun 19, 2014

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 09:45

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Nenonen posted:

Surely you'd be better off falling from your horse well armoured, in particular protected by a helmet designed to withstand some brutal blows, than unprotected?

A lot of falling injuries have to do with the position of your body and such and the impact, and while protection is very good and you should always have it, its not a 100% guarantee. In terms of falling from horses, people like the Superman actor are outliers. If you do fall from a horse in battle, you should assume that you will be more or less fine and try to get back up as quickly as possible (and fight or run). If you are wounded by whatever brought you down, and you are wearing armour, then you're absolutely hosed. It's hard enough to get back up with regular armour. Wearing very heavy armour (and armouring the horses) made such combatants very, very slow. Wearing so much armour that you need to be placed on your mount would exhaust the horse quickly. And whoever was wearing it, it was a bitch to move in regular armour, let alone whatever needs a crane.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 09:56

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

HEY GAL posted:

No real armor needs a crane, dude, that's a myth from the 19th century. Someone posted a video of a pair of Swiss (???) guys in armor whaling on each other in the Medieval Military History thread and they moved slower but it wasn't ponderous. I think Henry IV could do backflips in full harness.

I know, I was just saying that all the problems of regular amour, which for everyone (correctly) noting that they're still mobile, would just be massively increased by someone requiring a crane to be mounted. You can be working out every day and move around in your heavy armour fairly well, but I'd nevertheless hate to be that guy being being felled from his horse in the middle of a battle, potentially with a wound, let alone with an armour so heavy that you cannot mount a horse normally. Because its true that it is fairly easy to move around in armour, and that its generally quite exaggerated in the popular perception how slow armoured warriors would be, however we shouldn't exaggerate in the other direction too much either. Sure people could run after a horse and mount it in full battledress, but you can't exactly do that indefinitely.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 12:22

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

When I studied Greek history I was taught that pre-Classical Greece could be divided (roughly) into Heladic, Cyladic, Minoician and Mycenean. I am furiously writing a letter to my parents for sending me to a sub-par institution that left out the Chinese colonization of Crete in 3000BC.

e:
I hope somewhere in Korea there is a place that explains this:

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jul 8, 2014

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 14:56

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

skooma512 posted:

Anybody know any good books on the Falklands War? I'd like to find something like Bowden's Black Hawk Down, a general history on the conflict with a focus on the tactical situations.

If you want to read a single book (in English, presumably), I recommend The land that lost its heroes: how Argentina lost the Falklands War by Jimmy Burns, I have the 2013 ed. and it is quite good, and gives a lot of depth. I don't know how similar it is to Bowden's book as I have not read that, but Burns provides both a general history and details the tactical situations (hopefully enough for your liking).

Azran posted:

I still have "Se�ales de Guerra" sitting on my shelf. It was written between Virginia Gamba (an argentinian historian) and Lawrence Freedman. Haven't read it yet (too engrossed with "1914" and "All Hell Let Loose" right now) but hey, it may be good. Dunno if there's an English version, it should be.

This is a very good book and I firmly recommend it. It is a very balanced account and both of the authors are good writers with many good works published. It is called Signals of War in English. I have both the Spanish and English editions and either one is a good read.

ArchangeI posted:

There is one hundred days by Admiral Woodward, who commanded the task force. It was a very interesting look into the logistical constraints they were working under, and it really shows how complex modern warfare can be. The only downside for me was that he never really owns up to any mistakes he might have made, it's always "Welp, nothing we could've done, guess that Exocet hit that ship through sheer dumb luck".

One Hundred Days is a very good book if you want to have Woodward's view on it. However, despite his position, its still a very limited account and lacks a lot of information of the wider context. It is a very worthwhile read, but it should not be the first thing that someone interested in the conflict picks up.

The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins is a decent book as well. The issue with that one is that its quite dated, as they got it out to print fairly quickly, and thus a lot of the information is shaky, although check if it has had a more comprehensive newer edition. Argentine Fight for the Falklands by Martin Middlebrook is also quite good, and more up to date. It also includes (as the title denotes) much more information from the Argentine side that would be usually present in British texts (maybe this is something you would like more, as it gives a lot of Argentine opinion on the engagements). Historia del Conflicto del Atlantico Sur by Rub�n O. Moro (a Commodore in the Naval Aviation) gives good operational insights into the Argentine effort. It is an extremely grognard book and its what I would recommend if you could read Spanish. Another very interesting book in Spanish is Malvinas: Diplomacia y conflicto armado, comentarios a la historia oficial britanica by Vicente Berasategui, in which he goes almost point-by-point in the British official history (by Lawrence Freedman) issuing replies. There are also other mainstays like Malvinas: La trama secreta by Cardoso, Kirschbaum and van der Kooy.

Staring reprovingly from my shelf is 1982 by Juan B. Yofre, have you read that Azran?

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 13:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:21

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

I've watched Our World War and I do recommend it. It's obviously no Band of Brothers but I quite liked it and while I do recognize some of the criticisms that Cyrano raises I do believe that they were made in order to get some more mainstream appeal and I forgive them for it. I didn't find the music too jarring and the overhead FLIR stuff works as establishing the context of what is going on just like the strategic map overviews. It also has good drama and brings up topics and discussions which take the whole thing beyond just an action thing set in ww1. It's not a masterpiece but its well worth one's time I think.

e: I do agree with the comments above about the interactive episode. I made two of the same mistakes trying to send the fastest man back and not opening fire since the man was obviously in a British uniform, carrying a Lee-Enflied, and you knew there was a massing man in your squad which just seem to punish you for drama's sake.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 12:06

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›2 »