|
Have you guys heard about Wojtek the bear???
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Nine of Eight posted:I'm loving the sheer unpredictability of Emilio Lussu's stories, you just never know what to expect each week. If they made a movie about Emilio Lussu, no one would believe it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:If they were so effective, are armed forces today still using flamethrowers? Or were they banned for being too messy or horrifying? There are better ways now to light people on fire from further away, like using thermobaric rockets out of a shoulder fired launcher.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Also I have deck of cards of naval spotting for ships from the 40s through the 60s. It's missing a card since I gave the ship class my dad served on to him. Useless as a deck and it's just a repro, so anyone want it? Thought one of you naval nerds might anyway. I'd be interested if it's still around, do you have PMs? Happy to PayPal or whatever you the cost of shipping of course.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:
Not quite the last, Jesse Oldendorf's BBs sank Yamashiro in the "Pearl Harbor Revenge" BB battle at Surigao Strait in October 1944. That one was even less fair of a fight though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Has anyone read Hornfischer's new book yet, The Fleet at Flood Tide? Strongly considering picking it up for Christmas since my extended family complains every year that I never want anything for Christmas. I'm about halfway through and it's been excellent, I highly recommend. Very readable and tells exciting individual-level stories, but still rigorous history. If there's a weakness it's that it's told almost exclusively from the American viewpoint - clearly his sourcing was a lot stronger there, which is perhaps understandable considering how many Japanese participants in the events in the Marianas didn't survive the war so they could write their war memoirs or be interviewed by historians like Hornfischer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I'd like to point out that this guy is not a 30 years war soldier, but a soldier of the Italian Wars, a vastly more interesting set of conflicts with better outfits. drat the girl is seriously thicc too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Lol look at the rest of the graph and compare current spending to pre-GWOT And a lot of the defense cuts were the result of the bipartisan sequestration bill passed by Congress, not Obama's fault.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Got Hornfischer's new book, The Fleet At Flood Tide for Christmas, and finished it this morning. It's an interesting book, but I think it's a step down from his previous works - I think Hornfischer isn't the best at talking about large-scale campaigns in the course of one book, and this one tried to cover the Marianas campaign, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, the bombing campaign against the Home Islands, and the atomic bomb, plus the fleet and air battles along the way and looking at the cost to civilians and how the Pacific war turned into one of total war culminating in the atomic bombs. I largely agree - I think the Marianas section was at Hornfischer's usual level, but it's clear he wasn't quite sure what to do with strategic bombing and Iwo and Okinawa. He didn't go into it on his usual depth but he (apparently) had to still include it at a relatively half-baked level for some reason. The book would have been better on average (and shorter) if it had just been Marianas and ended, with a separate volume to come on the final year. It's still the best thing I've read on the Marianas campaign and I very much enjoyed it but it's probably not a mandatory read on the Pacific for any but the most obsessed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Goofy 60s orientalism aside, I actually quite like YOLT. Its got ninjas, hijacked space ships, a secret volcano base, Bond and Bloefeld finally meeting faced to face, and Tiger Tanaka. It's basically a classic Bond formula film done well, like Goldfinger without the slow middle. And an even better theme song. The Spy Who Loved Me is pretty much a straight up remake of YOLT with subs instead of spaceships and no (or at least much much less) racism. It's Roger Moore at his finest instead of a visibly bored Connery. It's got Jaws, sets so large they had to build the largest sound stage in the world to shoot, and the single best stunt of the franchise. It's better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Battle Tactics of the Western Front has a good overview of the development of infiltration tactics by the British post-Somme, including comparisons to what came before it in the form of linear wave tactics. It's a real good book in general anyway, and pretty short. I second the recommendation. The book does a good job dispelling the myth that the Germans were the only ones working on tactical innovations for the offensive while the Allies bravely marched into machine gun fire. There was really a great deal of innovation in the use of both artillery and infantry on the Allied side and the significance of "German storm troopers" is way overblown in most folks' minds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:No....it still needed to be invented by someone, right? The Germans got to it first, although by the time they did in ww1 they didn't have the resources on a strategic level to really exploit it. Except the Germans didn't really get to it first. Infiltration tactics were developed by the French and all-arms coordination was done first and best by the British.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Would you have any resources about this? I know about the brits first doing more combined ops, but I didn't know about the French. The aforementioned Battle Tactics of the Western Front is the best history of WWI infantry tactics. It focuses on the British first and foremost but it covers all three. Germans are stereotyped for "storm trooper tactics" because sturmtruppen sounds badass, it fits with the image of stahlhelmed supermen carrying flamethrowers into the enemy trenches, and the Germans did have some offensive success in 1918 (for reasons other than their tactics). Meanwhile the British stereotype is Kitchner's boys slowly marching in line into MG fire at the Somme and the French stereotype is of either charging and dashing elan or mutiny, depending on the year of the war.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I'll add those to my reading list. Another factor for the German stormtrooper reputation I forgot to mention in the previous post - Germans weren't on the strategic offensive for most of the war. When people think of stormtroopers, they think of small groups, volunteers or hand-picked guys with extra gear and lots of grenades, who infiltrate enemy lines and blow cause havok. Both sides did that - they were called trench raids, and they happened throughout the war with the goals of snatching prisoners, getting intel on enemy positions, etc. Since the Germans were on defense nearly all the time in 1915-17 in the West (Verdun is the big exception), trench raiding is pretty much all they did offensively. Meanwhile the British and French did trench raids largely the same, but they also did the big setpiece offensives with timed bombardments and big formations and many casualties. So when you think of the typical German attack across no-mans-land for most of the war, you think of a stormtrooper-style trench raid, because that was mostly all they did, and when you think of an Allied attack you think of the Somme and you forget all the stormtrooper-style attacks that the Allies did do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:were trench raids really the purpose of german stormtrooper units? or was it an incidental task? does it lessen their development of the concept? What lessens the German development of the concept is that they didn't develop it in any unique or special way. All three armies on the western front developed the concept of using small units of picked or volunteer men with combined arms support and lots of grenades and special weapons to carry out specialized tasks alongside and ahead of the main body. Different armies came up with different elements in different orders but it's not like there was some dramatic revolution on one side while the other spent the war fighting like the 19th century. The trench raid example is just to show how the stereotype of what a German attack vs a British attack looked liked could have gotten into people's minds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
How many times per month does Krengel see the doctor? Seems to be once every week or two, usually for multiple days at a time. Gives an interesting perspective on how soldiering used to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Following the Krengel saga I've become interested in diaries, so, does anyone have any good recommendations, in particular for the eastern front and asia? I liked the ground-level, at-the-time aspect of it, particularly, so stuff that's "the krengel diary but for a soviet soldier" or whatever would be fantastic. Seven Days In January is one of the best war stories I've ever read https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-January-SS-Mountain-Operation/dp/0966638964 It's by a battalion operations officer in the 6th SS Mountain Division - the first third or so of the book is about ski operations against Russians for several years in and around Finland, but the meat of the book is when the division is sent to the Western Front for Operation Nordwind against the US in January 1945. The author is in a position to straddle both the front lines and the command decision making, and it's an extraordinary story of how infantry combat actually happened at the tactical level in WW2, with a focus on a specific and fascinating operation. Its one of the best war books I've ever read - exciting and readable while being extremely rigorous and well thought out. I can't recommend it highly enough, this is a book where I'm willing to give my guarantee that if you buy it, read it, and honestly and seriously feel it's wasted your time and money, PM me and I will paypal you $10. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The first thing to look up is probably the USS Forrestal disaster. The tl;dr is that it was an incident where an aircraft carrier stationed off of Vietnam suffered a devestating fire that nearly destroyed the ship, in part due to atrophied DC practices in the aftermath of World War II. The event precipitated a renewed effort in the Navy to create and sustain good DC practices, and is still used as a case study in DC training today. There's a great book on the Forrestal fire: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00188V7Y6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 It's just $3 on Kindle, no reason not to buy it. It's very in depth and a fantastic story of how damage control could go wrong and how it could go better. I highly recommend. As with all books I recommend, I issue my standing offer - if you buy it, read it, and feel it wasted your time, I'll paypal you the price of the book.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Glad that I'm not the one who needs to clean the poo poo out afterwards How about being the guy who has to walk over the barbed wire obstacles on a flimsy little board? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Cognac is manky but Armenia is in literally classical wine country so I don't see a problem. Cognac is only cognac if it's from the Cognac region of France. All other "cognac" is just brandy. Like with champagne, where all of it from anywhere but Champagne is supposed to be called sparkling wine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
German soldier carrying a PPSh - I haven't seen real statistics but anecdotes say this wasn't uncommon on the East Front. I wonder how they handled ammo resupply, were there enough that is was worth it to produce and distribute PPSh ammo?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh, that makes sense. Cool! Cross of Iron has some sections that drag but the final battle scene is really amazing. Realistic and exciting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Unless they sacrificed a lot of ships to send to the Pacific, that isn't a whole lot to contend with, honestly. Magical alternate-history Monarchist Gay Black Hitler or not. They would have seen the effect of airpower in the sinking of Force Z on December 10, the first sinking by airpower of capital ships underway. Prince of Wales and Repulse were a lot better ships with better anti-air defenses than the old wagons in Pearl, and Churchill called their sinking "the most direct shock" of the war. So there would still have been opportunities for airplanes to prove themselves in the naval realm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:was about to make this post The average US Army soldier in WW2 weighed 144 pounds, it's been a colossal change in American body weights in a relatively short amount of time. Obesity is obviously a huge part and is in play with many re-enactors, but it's more than just sugar and saturated fat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Following on from Trin's excellent post, if anyone is interested in the details of how WWI armies adapted to trench warfare and tried to work out how best to conduct attacks, Battle Tactics of the Western Front by Paddy Griffith is a great book that goes into a ton of detail on the thought processes of the British Army post-Somme. Two pages back, but I emphatically second this recommendation. It's a great book with very detailed info on both what was happening at the theoretical command level and on the ground for the British army in WW1. Basically the Brits were better (with time) at attacking than the stereotypes give them credit for, but attacking a WW1 trench was also a whole lot harder than most people understand. It's a great read too - serious history but comfortably readable. Like a Shattered Sword for how British infantry/artillery attacked in WW1.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Siivola posted:How black and gay is Hitler in the parallel universe where the US backs out of the war instead of going balls out at it? The way Burns tells it, they weren't doing too hot before Midway. FDR was re-elected in 1940 and had until 1944. He understood the importance of fighting against Germany and he understood the immense industrial advantage the US had, much of which was already coming online at the time of Pearl Harbor (e.g. Two Ocean Navy act). I think FDR wouldn't have let the US surrender as long as the other allies were still fighting regardless of early battlefield setbacks and swings of popular political will. US popular political will was extremely isolationist before Pearl Harbor and it didn't stop FDR from doing stuff like Lend-Lease and Destroyers For Bases. By the 1944 election year that a peace candidate could have won, the US industrial advantage would have grown to the point that some kind of victories must have been won.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If anyone was wondering why they wouldn't always use picket men, trying to move through southeast Asian forests is an experience that ranges from frustrating to hopeless. There good description of how difficult it can be in The Jungle is Neutral, covering anti Japanese partisans in Malaya. Asian jungles are wretched nothing but dense thorny Moraceae understory, far woodier than vegetation in the neotropics and hence much more difficult to cut through, requires a heavier more ax like machete. You could spend an hour struggling and be lucky to make it 100 meters. In that kind of environment there's not necessarily much option besides taking the established path For anyone curious, The Jungle Is Neutral is the best war memoir I've ever read by a colossal margin. It's incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:3. Prestige. Seems odd, but the sheer international penis rating is an important part of any navy and any ship afloat, and has been since time immemorial. The Iowas, as the final and best generation of battleship (to date?), conveyed a huge amount of international penis rating. There's a reason the Japanese surrender was signed aboard an Iowa rather than a carrier, even if carriers were the more instrumental weapon of war. The surrender wasn't just on Missouri because of battleship prestige. It's been reported that Navy higher-ups were terrified that the surrender signing might happen ashore and be an Army show, so they proposed holding the signing on the ship named after Truman's home state to ensure his support for the idea of holding a ceremony highlighting the Navy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 20:47
|
|