|
Urcinius posted:Man Asses 
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Urcinius posted:Man Asses is the battlefield Is it really called that or is that a typo? I started to Google it but then thought better of it so I am legit asking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 05:48
|
|
|
I've known for years I could never visit that place and keep a straight face
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:Is it really called that or is that a typo? I started to Google it but then thought better of it so I am legit asking. Manassas
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 06:22
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:Man Asses Starting to wonder why they also call it Bull Run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
Rascar Capac posted:Starting to wonder why they also call it Bull Run. It's a long way from Pamplona, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Likely a different answer for each site, but how similar is the terrain today compared to when the battles were fought? Is there generally a sense that it is pretty close? I imagine 150 years could really change things. Vegetation is usually the big issue. Trees grow a lot in 50 years, much less 150, and a lot of the land that was fought over in the 1860s was actively maintained farm land that hasn't been touched in over a century. The east coast is actually far, far more forested today than it was in the back half of the 19th century, mostly a result of a lot of rural cleared lands falling back into disuses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 12:44
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:It's a long way from Pamplona, that's for sure. That's how far you run when there's a bull chasing you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
Since it was brought up earlier, by the way - how were revolvers used by the cavalry of the Civil War? Empty them out on the charge to provide shock as you ride in? Get in close and then blaze away with superior rate of fire before charging? Use them effectively as a very powerful melee weapon instead of or in combination with the saber? No actual doctrine for their use, just leave it to individual troopers to do what they like with them as the unit charges in? A caracole, even?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Since it was brought up earlier, by the way - how were revolvers used by the cavalry of the Civil War? Empty them out on the charge to provide shock as you ride in? Get in close and then blaze away with superior rate of fire before charging? Use them effectively as a very powerful melee weapon instead of or in combination with the saber? No actual doctrine for their use, just leave it to individual troopers to do what they like with them as the unit charges in? A caracole, even? This is going to depend a lot on what the cav is doing and being used for. There are two pretty good examples of this at Gettysburg. The first is what you think of when you think "cavalry battle" - East Cavalry Field on the third day of Gettysburg, where Stuart was sent around to attack the Union rear during the assault on the center of the Union line, and they were intercepted by Union Cav, including the 7th Michigan under one George Armstrong Custer. This engagement descended into a general melee at very close range, basically the horseback version of a dogfight. Here you saw everything from sabers to carbines to pistols used at extremely short ranges, with dudes basically riding around blasting at each other. There's one account I read somewhere, sometime, but can't track down now (so consider it basically apocryphal) of a Union officer at that fight who brought four pistols, tied short lanyards to his saddle horn, and dropped them to dangle on the horse's flanks as he emptied them in turn. Here, the major advantage of a pistol is that you get six shots and you can use it one handed, since even a breach loading carbine is going to be a bitch and a half to reload on horseback and doubly so if it's moving. The other, more common, use you see of cav is as rapidly deployable dismounted infantry. That's what you see Buford's cavalry do on day one of Gettysburg when they rapidly deployed ahead of the main union forces and fought a delaying action to buy time for the rest of the army to arrive. Conceptually this is more or less the same way that fast moving light infantry has always been used, from foot skirmishers in Ancient Rome through airborne today - light forces that can't stand toe to toe with the main enemy body but which can harass or get into areas that your main body can't. In that case pistols would have been used lightly, if at all, and the main fighting done with their carbines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 13:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Vegetation is usually the big issue. Trees grow a lot in 50 years, much less 150, and a lot of the land that was fought over in the 1860s was actively maintained farm land that hasn't been touched in over a century. The east coast is actually far, far more forested today than it was in the back half of the 19th century, mostly a result of a lot of rural cleared lands falling back into disuses. The Leatherstocking Tales by Cooper (The Last of the Mohicans et al) were a proto-Environmentalist series. They were in reaction to how much of the forest of the Northeast US, and New York in particular, had been devastated by clear-cutting. That message got sent in a very 19th century way, but those books are why I have places to hike now. All the forests up here are less than 200 years old ; it’s really funny to tell that to tourists when they act like the Catskills are a forest primeval.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 13:56
|
|
|
The town where I grew up is like... 90% forested now, but you can tell that at one point the ratio was reversed because all the woods have dry stone walls running through them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Rascar Capac posted:Starting to wonder why they also call it Bull Run. The Union and Confederate armies often had different names for different battles because there's no post-battle meeting where they decide "ok this one was called X" What I was told (which could be totally made up but seems plausible) is that Union forces, tending to be made up of people from more urban areas, would name the battle after a geographical/natural feature because seeing one was more novel to them, so in this case its the battle of Bull Run. The confederate forces, tending to be made up of more rural people, would pick the name of the nearest town or city since that was more noteworthy to them - so in their case it's the battle of Manassas. It comes up with a few different battles. Someone mentioned Balls Bluff (Union Name) but the Confederate name is Leesburg. The battle of Shiloh was known as the battle of Pittsburg Landing in the north, Antietem was called the battle of Sharpsburg in the south, and so on. It seems like, generally speaking, we end up calling it whatever the winner named it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The town where I grew up is like... 90% forested now, but you can tell that at one point the ratio was reversed because all the woods have dry stone walls running through them. I don't know why, but I loving love a dry stone wall. There's literally hundreds of them around here and they all make me ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
Have I got the Confederate general for you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
There was a headline in a local paper (iirc) a decade ago or so that ran, "Manasses a Haven for Gays," which touted the growth of LGBT-friendly businesses in the area. Sadly, I can't find it in a search anymore so someone probably didn't appreciate the pun. Carillon posted:Likely a different answer for each site, but how similar is the terrain today compared to when the battles were fought? Is there generally a sense that it is pretty close? I imagine 150 years could really change things. As Cyrano noted, trees are a big alteration. All through Northern Virignia in the mid-19th century the land was cleared for farming, but large chunks have returned to forest. Where there were existing trees they've grow to be much larger. I live near the highest point in Arlington County, which was held by the Union for the whole war as an observation point/reserve camp. Confederate-held Falls Church could be seen at the time from ground level, though they also had a tower and launched tethered balloons, but today where there aren't million-dollar houses there are trees and the view is totally blocked. Sure enough, a bunch of stuff at Gettysburg is obscured by trees that were not there at the time. Also, at all the battlefields the areas that would have been working farms at the time are (mostly) at best just a grassy field. Development, as also noted, is the most obvious problem. Manassas (and Centreville, Haymarket, everything nearby) was massively built-up from the late 80s/early 90s on, though it mostly encroaches just on one side of the Battlefield Park and you can feel still kinda rural like the whole area used to be as recently as 50 years ago. Antietam still feels pretty far from development, but Gettysburg has chain businesses practically right on the edge of the Park. glynnenstein fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
There are even a McDonalds and other restaurants on ground where part of Pickett's charge took place. Most of the ground on the northern flank where Federal Cavalry skirmished with Confederate cavalry and infantry on day 2 is also private property now. Even the approaches to Cemetery Hill is now significantly different or have obscured sight lines unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
MikeC posted:There are even a McDonalds and other restaurants on ground where part of Pickett's charge took place. Most of the ground on the northern flank where Federal Cavalry skirmished with Confederate cavalry and infantry on day 2 is also private property now. Even the approaches to Cemetery Hill is now significantly different or have obscured sight lines unfortunately. Still better off than Fredricksburg. Pretty much the entire battlefield is part of the city now. Which, in fairness, a bunch of the city was battlefield on the day of. There was no real way to save that one unless you wanted to keep that town at its 1860s size forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Bro there are McDonalds' everywhere now. I was in Kyoto a few months ago and theres a McDonalds across the street from where the emperor used to live. Pretty rad!Cyrano4747 posted:Still better off than Fredricksburg. Pretty much the entire battlefield is part of the city now. Yeah thats the one downside. I was at Marye's Heights over Christmas a year or so ago visiting relatives and I'm like "wow, so this is what it looked like" and you can see a 7-11 gas station and residential neighborhoods. It's still a pretty neat spot. The major portions of the battlefield are still well-preserved. But the city is still there and has expanded a fair bit in 150+ years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 02:46
|
|
|
there have been mcdonalds in japan for 53 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Bro there are McDonalds' everywhere now. I was in Kyoto a few months ago and theres a McDonalds across the street from where the emperor used to live. Pretty rad! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
7-11 is a different and vastly superior corporate entity in japan. same w lawsons restaurant
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
Hah I didn't even notice there were two 7-Elevens on that map
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 03:54
|
|
|
Well of course there's a MacDonalds there. It would have been shielded from the blast by the castle. e: from memory, the hypocentre (?) was a bit east of the train icon at the bottom of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Well of course there's a MacDonalds there. It would have been shielded from the blast by the castle. Nah, more top and left. It’s by the water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Nah, more top and left. It’s by the water. Both wrong - it's a block north of the 7-11 down the bottom there. I think it's a bit confusing because the "usual" aerial view of Hiroshima centres futher south but has no Maccas on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 04:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
So they're often used in the dragoon role then? It's interesting how much the perception is about charging, but that role of fighting on foot never leaves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
In the Napoleonic period you are already deep into the point where conventional military wisdom was 'infantry have to gently caress up to be seriously threatened by cavalry' (not counting deploying into square and becoming a wonderful artillery target). Once you have rifled muzzleloaders and carbines everywhere your horse is just going to get shot if you go anywhere near well ordered infantry while mounted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
July - 1861 Lincoln is Master of America Only the Confederacy Stands Before Him Man Asses Are Now Battlefields
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:31
|
|
|
Carillon posted:So they're often used in the dragoon role then? It's interesting how much the perception is about charging, but that role of fighting on foot never leaves. More than often. Primarily would be the appropriate term and cavalry melees were rare though both sides were drilled and expected to be able to carry it out. Even in most cavalry vs cavalry fights, both sides would dismount unless one side tried to force the issue and led mounted attacks on each other's line. This is in addition to the thankless, exhausting, but neverending tasks of picketing, scouting routes ahead of the army, protecting the miles of wagon trains in the rear, screening the army from opposing infantry and cavalry, and being on detached courier duty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In the Napoleonic period you are already deep into the point where conventional military wisdom was 'infantry have to gently caress up to be seriously threatened by cavalry' (not counting deploying into square and becoming a wonderful artillery target). Isn’t the point of cavalry to keep the infantry under threat so they move slower and make better targets for artillery? If you didn’t bring any cavalry the enemy could move in ways that make them harder to shoot (but vulnerable to cavalry).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
Cavalry has several roles, as a flying reserve, flank protection, reconnaissance etc. But the most crucial role imho is when the infantry on one side starts routing. If at that point they have no protection from friendly horse dudes but the enemy has strong cavalry, they are in a world of hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 07:14
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:July - 1861
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 07:46
|
|
|
Do you believe that love can bloom, even on man asses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 07:48
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Union and Confederate armies often had different names for different battles because there's no post-battle meeting where they decide "ok this one was called X" I've never thought of that before, but of course it makes sense now that you've written it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 12:15
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Cavalry has several roles, as a flying reserve, flank protection, reconnaissance etc. But the most crucial role imho is when the infantry on one side starts routing. If at that point they have no protection from friendly horse dudes but the enemy has strong cavalry, they are in a world of hurt. This is more of a thing in the ancient world than post-gunpowder. I mean it was a thing that they prepped for for a long time. Lancers last all the way into WW1. But the reality is that even in a retreat or even a route cav that have scattered to kill random dudes are going to be really vulnerable to those dudes turning around and shooting them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
Since we're talking about sight lines one of my favorite memories is from a trip to Ireland. I visited castle ruins on a rainy day and had the place to myself for an hour and a half, and the castle nerd kid in me got to geek out over how awesome it was to be able to stand and see how each gatehouse over watched the previous one, how the approach meant attackers were exposed to as much fire as possible, all that cool stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 14:20
|
|
|
Benagain posted:Since we're talking about sight lines one of my favorite memories is from a trip to Ireland. I visited castle ruins on a rainy day and had the place to myself for an hour and a half, and the castle nerd kid in me got to geek out over how awesome it was to be able to stand and see how each gatehouse over watched the previous one, how the approach meant attackers were exposed to as much fire as possible, all that cool stuff. This reminded me about seeing the old destroyed Soviet tanks in the mountains in northern Afghanistan. There were quite a lot of them and in some places there were still mujahideen fighting positions carved into the ridge lines. It felt like going to a US civil war battlefield and seeing horse skeletons right where they fell. There was one particular mountain road that we drove through where it was obvious that the Soviets were just completely hosed due to the way the road winded up the mountain, back and forth leading into a saddle with two hilltops overlooking it. Driving up that road would have exposed them to crossfire from both hilltops in a compact area with absolutely zero cover. At the top, the road itself became terrifying since it was almost too narrow to drive on with a steep vertical cliff leading down into the valley. At the bottom of the valley there were probably a dozen tanks still sitting there, picked clean of valuable metals long ago but too heavy to move what remains, so they've become elaborate tombstones, almost like a sunken warship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 14:59
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Well of course there's a MacDonalds there. It would have been shielded from the blast by the castle. The bridge that was there had been replaced, though. In the 80s, because what killed that bridge wasn't the nuke going off right next to it, it was corrosion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
What were the soviets doing in Afghanistan anyway? What were their military aims?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:23
|
|