|
CommonShore posted:This thread will represent a revolution in milhist posting discourse Figure 1: Ye Olde Milhist Discourse 
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Polyakov posted:Yes, the Mk.48 ADCAP that destroyed that ship was being tested for that very capability. There is a distinct advantage. IIRC this is basically the mechanic that they think is also behind a bunch of rogue wave and other mysterious sinkings. tl;dr if the seas get just the right wavelength of waves your super-long container ship might end up straddling two peaks with an unsupported middle, which snaps the keel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
If you all want an accessible and decent book on those check out “Seven Frigates.” A good chunk of it is about the way they came about and were built. It’s solid if you don’t have background in naval history and want something readable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Did the flaring bits on the classic stalhelm serve a practical purpose that the FJ helmet suffered from losing? Supposedly it was to provide better protection for the neck area, and was modeled after the medieval sallet. I say "supposedly" because I'm not sure if it was actually any more effective at preventing neck injuries than a brodie or adrian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
FWIW even the Nazis were looking to revise it, as iconic as it was and as much as we associate it with them today. They had a m1945 Stahlhelm that never entered production which, unchanged, was eventually produced by the DDR as their standard helmet. edit: realized I need to clarify that that dude's an East German soldier. They, uh, reused a lot of the old Wehrmacht look, especially early on. I've read that the flared sides have basically the same idea as the flared base (heheh) on the WW1-WW2 Stahlhelm, with the benefit of whatever combat experiences or ease-of-manufacturing* changes they came up with over the previous 30 years. *the Stahlhelm was hideously crazy to make. Something like a dozen major stamping stages and the dies had to be heated for reasons involving the gauge of steel they used or something. Either way, it was a gently caress ton more difficult to make one than a pot helmet or a brodie by the time you hit WW2.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
It's also worth noting that that poo poo looked like that right up until the end. I remember going through piles of E. German surplus in the early 00s and marveling at how it was all cut that way. The greatcoats are super blatant. The DDR in the 80s wasn't a country so poor it had to re-use old uniform designs. MrYenko posted:There had to be at least one member of the Gestapo that slipped through the cracks and ended up in the Stasi. If by "at least one" you mean "gently caress near all of them," sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Yeah I was thinking the same thing, was that just a eccentric extra or was there a crazy maverick who refused to cut his Meiji era beard? Man, I dunno about that one dude but on a whim I googled "japanese admiral beard" and turned up this guy  loving goddrat I think four sperm whales died to provide the oil for that magnificent spread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:He ordered the cutting of the anchor chain so they could get their rear end moving. This is a pretty big loving deal, BTW. Anchors are big, annoying to ship in a replacement, annoying to find and recover if you can, and very necessary. Cutting anchor is something you try to avoid. An ensign just yeeting that fucker is peak “poo poo you only get away with in war time”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
zoux posted:I hope they aren't dismounting their helicopters to fight on the ground Uh, yeah, they do that all the time. You know, infantry inserting via helicopter and then the helo fucks off while the infantry does infantry things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:turns out the modern front lines are hazardous for most personnel transports. Old ones were too. Horses died in huge numbers in wars, and a significant chunk of any dismounted cavalry squadron was dudes in the rear making sure the horses didn't run away or get killed or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
No one in the western allies saw his body and there were a poo poo ton of nazi big wigs showing up in prison camps dressed like corporals and sergeants. Everyone knew the assholes we’re trying to lay low and slip out the back door and everyone was looking for them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Were cavalry troops generally considered prestigious? You mentioned it could be boring but important work. There’s also the negative connotation to “dragoon”. Why? REALLY depends. "Cavalry" is a huge category that contains everything from Princess Fancypant's Peronal Lifeguard Honor Dragoons Parade Regiment to the XIXXLVIXIIX. Light Horse Recon Expendables.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
They also funnel people. Useful for both pointing trade towards those handy holes in the wall (aka “gates”) where you can tax if and funneling invaders towards areas you prefer to fight them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
This isn’t an ADMIN VOICE RED STAR DIRECTIVE but just a friendly suggestion from shitposter cyrano who reads this thread: Maybe we all make a gentlegoon’s agreement that if we are going to post a feature movie length YouTube for discussion, the person posting it should make a bit of an effort post about what it is, what it argues, what evidence they marshal, etc? Because no one is going to watch a 2hr video just to argue about it online but EVERYONE will argue the topic they think it’s about. Kind of like how some discussion / politics / etc threads have rules against just empty quoting an article without providing your own thoughts as a conversation starter. Edit: I mean, gently caress, abstracts exist for articles and books for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Similar to focussing strategic bombing in Germany on fuel production, only quite late in the war was is appreciated how you go from being really lovely and annoying to a country to managing to cause actual structural collapse of a society from the air. One of the neat things about having a pretty wide-ranging military gun collection is that you can see this moving in opposite directions in real time. I've got an early 1942 Mosin that looks like it was chiseled out of barstock by a drunk. A Khyber Pass gunsmith would grimace at it. I've also got a pre-war K98k that has an impressive level of surface machining and general fit and finish. Meanwhile, I've got a '44 dated sniper mosin (different production line, better QC) that is in fit and finish terms the equal of anything you'll find made anywhere else in the world and a '44 dated G/K43 that is literally a rough forging that had the bearing surfaces machined out. You can see forging scale under the finish, it's wild.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Fangz posted:"Make Hitler surrender" is a very specific criteria though. "The bombing campaign" is also a huge blanket to throw over a very complex series of operations. If you're asking about "strategic bombing" the answer is going to be very different for hitting an airfield vs hitting a factory vs hitting a rail yard vs hitting oil production and storage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 14:13
|
|
|
It’s worth noting that fg42 derivatives were troubled in foreign service too. The Swiss made the Stgw 52 which was heavily influenced by the FG42. They only made about 500 of them and adopted the much longer lived Stgw57 soon after. The US combined some features of it and some features of the MG42 to make the M60 and that was more successful but still a design with a complicated history and debatable effectiveness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Also I don’t know how true this is but I’ve heard that part of the reason for that early grip was to fit the gun in the drop tubes the luftwaffe used for their gear. Yeah they didn’t drop with their guns. This caused some problems on Crete.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:That's not really the best argument, plenty of good equipment had limited production runs - just look at the Jumbo Sherman, which was limited to only 254 tanks. Something that large runs gets you, though, are revisions to fix some of the outstanding issues. I don’t know that this factors into the fg42 discussion but I mention it because of the very different histories of the Stgw52 and the M60. The Swiss made the decision to poo poo can it so it was never really iterated on (much, the Stgw54 was a thing), while the M60 was iterated enough to be not-terrible by the time it was retired.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Doesn't surprise me at all. A disruption to infrastructure doesn't just hit one point of distribution it hits everything down that line. Things get pushed back and that can cause a cascade effect from bottleneck to bottleneck. It also becomes a big problem when you have different factories making sub-assemblies or parts. One of the weird things you'll see with late war K98ks is that all of a sudden you start seeing early war parts on late war guns. Things like milled barrel bands that were replaced by stamped versions to speed up production, or hardwood stocks years after they had moved to laminates. What happened was that transportation got so hosed that subcontractors making small parts couldn't get their crap to the factories that did the assembly. The solution was to go rummaging through warehouses to find parts that had been rejected as out of spec in past years and either use them as is if they were close enough or refurb them enough to get them to work. In other cases it's dusting off old equipment to make poo poo that had been subcontracted out. I forget why the stock thing happened, but it was a similar supply chain fuckup.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The use of gliders in WWII is so weird form a modern perspective. They're basically one-way helicopters as far as their use goes. The purpose was to put men in a single spot (rather than scattered like a para drop) with more and heavier equipment than you could manage with parachutes. The trade off was that you had to do it in a place that had a halfway clear LZ and where the gliders could land without getting shot to pieces. Obviously helicopters are just plain better at all this, but the broad strokes of why you'd use them and what you need to think about when employing them are similar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I thought the literal point of the Maginot line was to save on manpower (which France was indeed short on in this period thanks to demographic reasons if nothing else). The purpose was to push any invaders north and fight the war on someone else’s farmland. Also that stretch of border is where the Prussians smashed through in 1870. It’s been fortified to hell historically because it’s great terrain to launch an invasion through and have a clear run to Paris on the other side.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yes, although (recursively) the Germans picked it up from the Allied press and ended up using the term themselves after the fact. It was used sporadically and very spottily by a few German officers writing think pieces in the mid-30s, but that was basically a rehashing of Schwerpunkt doctrine. So not really a new idea, as you said. "Concentrate your forces to create a breakthrough and rush units into the gap to exploit it and gently caress up the enemy's rear" isn't exactly a revolutionary idea. It was (probably) brought to England by a Fritz Sternberg, Jewish and socialist refugee who wrote a book talking about how if Germany went to war they would need to go for fast, decisive victories because they were too economically and socially brittle to sustain a long one. He had a later book titled aptly "Why Hitler Can't Win." He wasn't using the term to talk about breakthroughs, he was just saying that the germans needed a lightning fast war or they'd crumble because of, well, all the poo poo this thread has talked about so many times re: economic poo poo. This thread would actually really like him. The dude basically called the major problems with the Nazis way early. IIRC he also became massively disenchanted with the USSR because of Stalin's BS and was active in leftist circles pushing disengagement with the USSR and a kind of leftist third way. So you're right that Goebbels' machine didn't pick up on it until after the western press started bandying it about in reaction to Poland and France, but they picked it up from a previous, non-popular discourse in German, and that discourse wasn't focused on it in the sense that we use it today, but just an emphasis on having to win a quick war.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:I think I have finally overcome my deep-seated hatred of stupidity and aristocrats enough to read my first book about WWI Since you're already expressing your hatred of aristocrats in addition to the good suggestions above you might want to check out Poilu by thread patron saint Louis Barthas It's a memoir so if you want the blow by blow of who moved armies where etc you're not going to get that, but if you want a book that gives you a sense of what it was like serving in the French Army you can't do better. He's also, uh, a little critical of officers. Just a tich.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
I’d read that as “spring to action” as in get to it ASAP. Not a description of the physical act but an emphasis upon how important it is to get the gun back to its firing position as soon as the recoil stops. That’s a big deal for maintaining a high RoF.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:I've started read BH Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War the past few nights. It's fine so far, but what's his reputation as a historian vs. strategist? Wikipedia says he was a 'clean wehrmacht' kind of guy. He also quotes from Churchill's 'The Second World War alot too-I presume that's worth reading as well? They both have a breezy, decidedly not academic tone that's sort of refreshing after slogging through a book about the HRE. He was pretty OK but very much a man, and a historian, of his generation. He's pretty easy to go full grad student on but really he wasn't a historian so much as he was a soldier, military theorist, and journalist. Those are the people who wrote the first books about why WW2 happened how WW2 happened, and ended up setting the ground that later historians dug into with archival research etc., but they also weren't working in the same way. It's kind of like bagging on Shirer for how hard he leaned into the Sonderweg. Certainly not the historical consensus today, but also understandable from the perspective of someone who had lived and worked in pre-war Germany and was looking around going "how in the gently caress did these people do that?" Liddell Heart was also a MASSIVE self promoter, to the point that he tried to take credit for the Germans "inventing" blitzkrieg, claiming that they were the ones smart enough to really look at the stuff he had been writing pre-war.* This also at least partially explains why he became instrumental in clean Wehrmacht poo poo. He was really chummy with a lot of old German generals and did a lot of work interviewing them. He also took a lot of poo poo that they said pretty un-critically, most notably in The German Generals Talk. It's an interesting source if you want to read about what they were thinking and doing today, but you also have to look at it through the lens of knowing they're talking a decade after the war to a Brit who has a hard on for strategic studies. Soft peddling how much you really thought that Adolf guy had the right idea makes a lot of sense. I've also gotten the impression - although it's only that, an impression, and not backed by anything like a quote or something that I can really point to - that he had a fairly upper middle class late 19th Century British schoolboy attitude towards warfare as being a giant game of sport. A brutal one, at times an ugly one, but still something undertaken by two groups of galant men playing by a certain set of rules. The kind of attitude that comes across in popular accounts of stuff like aces waggling their wings at an opponent who is out of ammo, etc. You see a lot of firm separation between the political objectives of (usually civilian) leadership and the behavior of soldiers in the field in this kind of stuff, in an almost perverse professionalism that tries to separate the activity on the battlefield from the political agendas that brought them there. I think he had a predisposition to see the defeated German generals as vanquished, honorable foes, not the military leadership that orchestrated a genocidal war for a monster. So, again, a man of his place and time. People like that tend to be fine for reading the broad strokes of a conflict, especially if it's easy to read prose. Just keep in mind that it's not some authoritative source. *scare quotes because, well, they didn't really invent all that much see the earlier conversation a few pages up-thread from here
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I think Churchill's The Second World War is worth reading but you have to bear in mind that it's a guy who was head of state writing about his own opinions and experiences. It's not objective, it's occasionally downright stupid, but it's still an entertaining history of a major decision-maker's experience of the war. Grants memoirs are way up there for similar reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:
What happened to it? And yeah, soldiers hearing tends to get hosed even today. Hearing loss is really common.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:small arms use uniform lead cast projectiles for the most part because you need to make billions of them, and that's the cheapest way to make them so that they fly straight. This is nitpicky, but there can absolutely be problems with modern small arms round that lead to them being non-uniform in the ways that matter for flying. It's not just the homogenous nature of the lead, the round also has to be properly concentric. You can gently caress up drawing the metal jacket over the lead in a way that leaves you with a center of gravity that's sub-optimal for stable flight. You also have to make sure that nothing funky goes on in the casting process. Voids or other issues can leave you with an interior that's very much not just 100% homogenous lead all the way through, which again affects how the round balances and also the weight (more on that below). Then you have the copper jacket, which is another stage where defects can be introduced. The weight of the projectile also matters. Accuracy isn't just about stabilization, it's about being able to consistently put two rounds as close together as possible. Changing the weight of the bullet changes the ballistics, which changes the point of impact. So even if your lead pour is perfectly consistent in terms of producing a uniform interior, if you end up with slight variations in weight that can also throw things off. The end result of this is that if you're making your own ammo there is a huge difference, both in price and quality, between cheap projectiles and good ones. You can get cheap 5.56 bullets for ~$.10 each if you buy them 1000 or more at a time. The match-grade stuff is more like ~$.30 to $.50 each, depending on what exactly you're buying. And even with the good stuff the really high end shooters will weight the bullets and sort them by weight in pretty small increments. Then there are tools for measuring and adjusting the concentricity of the round etc. All of that is the kind of poo poo that no one is going to worry about if they're cranking out a few million rounds for a machine gun or infantryman's rifle, but it comes up when you get into precision shooting, whether civilian or military . edit: that's just the actual bullets. There are a ton of other things that come into play with how the cartridge is made. The seating depth of the projectile, the neck tension of the brass, how consistent the interior volume of the brass is, the quality of the primer, what kind of powder and how accurately each charge is measured, etc. Which all tl;drs down to some huge variation in ammunition quality between countries and eras. Soviet 7.62x54r loaded for MGs is pretty poo poo ammo, while Swiss 7.5mm is famous for being of insanely high quality or something that was issued to conscripts. edit 2: that's not to say the Soviets couldn't make good ammo. They just had a strong sense of what as good enough for purpose. The de-linked heavy ball you might have bought at a gun show in the early 00s was utter trash, but the 7N1 loading for marksman rifles that came in a few times was all around really good. Same deal with their rifles - a m91/30 Mosin made for infantry use could be really rough, with a sloppily reamed chamber and kinda crappy barrel etc. Good enough for minute of fascist at 100 yards, but all in all mediocre, especially when paired with that awful ammo. On the other hand a Mosin sniper rifle was made on a different line in the same factory and were of equal quality to anything you would find made in any other country at the time. Pair a sniper m91/30 with good ammo and it's a very accurate gun. Pair a general issue m91/30 with issue ammo and it's the epitome of "good enough, I guess."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Would civil war cannon crews have widespread hearing loss? Im assuming yes, but not sure if they would have fired far fewer rounds with less powerful charges and if that would have mattered. Yes, pretty much anyone frequently firing any kind of gun - even black powder - without earpro is going to suffer hearing loss.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Comstar posted:See, that's why I come to this thread. So what happened exactly? Denmark fell to the Germans really drat fast, people were afraid that Denmark (who was the colonial overlord of Iceland) would let the Germans station airplanes and uboats there, so the Brits pre-emptively landed soldiers. Basically the same thing the Germans tried in Norway, when they told the Norwegians they were going to send in the Wehrmacht to protect their neutrality from British aggression.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:When I was a kid I remember reading about mountain infantry and I immediately assumed they must be the most badass mountaineers in the entire world, like they can all free solo Everest with nothing but a rifle and they all know how to light a fire in the snow with just their nutsack and some leaves. This kinda sorta was a thing in the 30s. Both the gebirgsjaeger and alpini made a bit of a propaganda point about having some world class climbers. I can’t find if they were actually gebirgsjaeger but Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurzwere both mountain climbers who joined the Wehrmacht and famously died together climbing the Eiger. There were also some photo ops later of mountain troops planting nazi flags on peaks in the Caucasus and poo poo like that. It also played really well with fascist conceptions of masculinity, the struggle of man against adversity, etc. As pointed out the reality was a bit different but this is 100% the image they were trying to project:  Edit: this is a good one too 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:
Can you elaborate on this? What's the deal there, they're fulfilling their national service requirements but everyone recognizes it does more good to have them training for the olympics than learning how to march or what?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I thought that scene had him taking it away because a bayonet that gets stuck in your enemy is a bayonet that traps you for his buddy to kill. I don’t know about the book version but the movie version goes into lurid detail about the various ways the British will supposedly torture you to death. Edit: still just soldier stories, don’t think anyone was ever killed for having one of those n
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Tank engines breathe air; they need an intake and an exhaust just like a car. Even if they're covered or protected they can't be airtight. To expand on this, even if it doesn't light poo poo on fire on the inside, tank engines need oxygen to combust their own fuel. If you've got a fire burning on the air intake it's going to be very oxygen-poor, which can stall the engine. My understanding is that fixing this is something that can require people to get out of the vehicle, which if you're in a situation where enemy soldiers are close enough to be lobbing molotovs is a very bad idea. Even if the tank and crew are basically fine it can still immobilize it, which may very well be good enough for the immediate situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Do modern National Guard units have any direct lineage/connection to the various state regiments that fought the civil war? Has there been a 20th Maine or w/e in existed since 186x or did those regiments all get disbanded before the idea of the National Guard came around? This has made me realize I have no idea when the National Guard was even created. Yep. 20th Maine is now, if you follow the paperwork, part of the 133rd Engineer Battalion, which is part of the Maine National Guard, and it has campaign honors stretching back to the Revolution. Getting back THAT far is being a little generous with organizational history - there's not much to really tie some of those militias together other than "they were raised in the same place by the orders of the same government at two different times" - but honestly it's close enough that you can argue for it, so why not? If you want to find an unbroken link it's a lot easier to do so with regular army units, and in particular cav regiments, just due to them actually being standing units in peacetime and generally better record keeping when they were disbanded and reconstituted for later conflicts. 7th Cav is pretty famous for Indian Wars stuff, but 1st Cav has battle honors that go back to the Mexican-American War. If you get down to lower levels, especially with stuff like artillery, you can also find other ones. 1st Battalion of the 5th Field Artillery Regiment, for example, traces back to an artillery regiment raised by Alexander Hamilton and is the only regular US Army unit with battle honors for the Revolution[/url]. Here's a list of the currently active units that trace back to the Revolution. They're almost all National Guard due to militias.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:May I suggest the Chrysler TV-8? It's like someone built a tank to maximize the shot trap potential.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Can I recommend one? This is a really, really goddamned good book and is basically required reading if you want to get a grip on what happened out there during WW2. One I'll recommend myself, it's a bit of a niche book but remains one of my favorites on WW1: Home Fires Burning: Food, Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin by Belinda J. Davis. It digs into the German home front in WW1 and in specific the way that women - including a fuckload of working class women - in Berlin directly affected high level military and political policy. It's really, really good for showing a home front that most Anglophone audiences get very little exposure too, highlighting just how much the wartime privations hosed with the Germans, and making very clear why the Nazis were so hell bent on keeping the standard of living up for the civilian population during the war. Pair that with Hitler's Beneficiaries and a lot of Nazi economic policies and how they used the Holocaust to undergird wartime non-Jewish civilian welfare begin to come into focus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:This is a World War II book and not a WWI book, but have you ever read Hitler's Empire by Mark Mazower, and, if so, what did you think? He makes the argument that a lot of WWII German occupation policy draws from earlier German colonial policy, both in their brief overseas empire but more within German controlled Poland. That's more or less the scholarly consensus at this point. Mazower's fundamental but it's something you'll find scattered around the literature. Isabell Hull's Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany is another key part of that argument. She traces how the colonial rebellions in Africa (in particular the Herero Genocide) shaped attitudes within the Imperial military command and in turn fed into a lot of WW1 stuff. Basically none of the poo poo that happened in the 40s came out of a vacuum, and people weren't reinventing the wheel when they were coming up with prejudices, policies, and agendas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
As someone who’s done the history PhD thing I’ll be the first to say you don’t need a PhD to do history. But it helps, because you learn a lot of the craft and technique of research, analysis, and writing. But you can 100% just learn that without getting the paper, the same way that you can teach yourself to play guitar or draw. The key is recognizing the difference between the historian versions of the self taught artist who has actually taken the time to develop the skills that other people learn at art school (or from a mentor etc) vs the person who traces anime all day and rejects any criticism because “that’s my style.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2021 15:50
|
|