|
Hey, I just bought a Kindle and I'm looking for free books to load it with. I was wondering if people on this thread had any recommendations of good out-of-copyright books on military history I can download for free? So far I've got Herodotus, Thucydides and Gibbon. Any era is welcome. I hope this question wasn't too tangential. 
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
NightGyr posted:Turkey has had this sort of thing happen repeatedly. Government gets corrupt, country falls into chaos, military takes over for a few years, democracy is restored, repeat. Turkey is a poor example here given how the army has been keeping their finger in the politics, and at least the threat of coup has always been there. A more ideal example would be the Portuguese Carnation Revolution of 1974, when the Salazarian dictatorship was overthrown by leftist officers, leading into a stable democracy. It's not often that such coups work, though. I guess the Romanian revolution could be given as an example - in the end, the army refused to oppose the demonstrators. The way the Soviet forces in Moscow supported Yeltsin (rather than the conservatives who had detained Gorbachev) in 1991 is another one, although not as straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
Readman posted:Hey, I just bought a Kindle and I'm looking for free books to load it with. Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Tranquillus are free & pretty interesting. There's a bunch of other Roman stuff for free on Kindle too, just search "Caesar".
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 01:54
|
|
AbleArcher posted:But it's a purely supporting role. Not really...at least not really in the modern sense. Once again, machine guns/mortars/etc suppress enemy fires and fix him in position. Riflemen then maneuver and assault the enemy position. Grenades, rifles, bayonets, shotguns, sharp sticks...whatever. They're just tools used by the assaulting forces. Also, SAWs are physically machine guns but treated as automatic rifles.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Readman posted:Hey, I just bought a Kindle and I'm looking for free books to load it with. Where is the best place to download those freebies? Right off of Amazon or archive.org, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I'm not unilaterally saying that the Sherman sucked or that it didn't do just fine 80% (or whatever) of the time, I'm saying that the United States was capable of procuring a medium tank that would have done just fine 95% of the time, and probably would have done so if they hadn't been stuck on Tank Destroyer theory. At what cost, though? There are trade-offs. They couldn't wave a magic wand and turn Shermans into Pershings. I don't know what the cost of making upgunned Shermans 6 months earlier would have been, but it wouldn't have been zero, and something else would have to pay that cost as a result. Considering that US armor performed spectacularly well on an operational and strategic scale, I think there are serious questions as to whether such upgunning would be worth it. If the cost is "there are no TDs", then I don't think it is worth it. More AFVs is better than fewer. It's also worth it to note that the period of time when 75mm Shermans faced unkillable German tanks in France was only about 2-3 months. 76mm Shermans are introduced into France July through September of 44. The US sees its first tank that a 75mm Sherman can't kill frontally at range in 1943, and it only sees a handful of them. They never fight a Panther until June 1944. It takes them a year to scale up the Sherman's gun and get the 76mm models across the ocean. Compare to the German reaction to tough-to-kill T-34s, KVs, and French Char B-1s, which takes until very late 1942/early 1943 to get Panzer IVs with the 75mm/L43 gun. And let's not forget that at Kursk, 1 in 6 German tanks was still a Panzer III or a IV with a 75mm/L24. Now, you'd expect the industrial giant that is the 1940s US to beat the Germans on up-arming, but my point is that command saw that there was room for improvement, and made improvement happen pretty darn fast compared to the other guys. Combat example of 75mm Shermans holding their own - the battle of Arracourt. September 44, Lorraine. 5th Panzer Army hits US XII Corps. The star of the show is US 4th Armored Division. They are hit by 75 Panzer IVs, 107 Panthers, and 80 other assorted AFVs. They have around 186 Shermans (almost exclusively with 75mm guns still, Patton was a holdout on introducing 76mm Shermans to 3rd Army until after this battle), 77 Stuarts, and a TD battalion with 36 Hellcats on the OOB, unclear how many actually fought. The US tanks and TDs set ambushes, take advantage of terrain, and kick the pants off the clearly superior German tanks. German losses are 86 total write-offs, 114 with damage, and they stagger away with only 62 AFVs capable of combat operations at the end of the battle. US losses for 4th Armored are 41 Shermans and 7 Stuarts for the month of September - most but not all of these are from the battle in question. Only reason Germans don't get chased across the West Wall is because the fuel goes to Market Garden instead of US 3rd Army. Outmatched tanks winning because they were used well. I guess my beef is that I feel the Sherman is being criticized based on a few nightmare anecdotes of unkillable Tigers. On an operational and strategic level, the US tank/TD arm performs extremely well. Is there room for improvement? Sure, there always is. Is the 75mm Sherman in Normandy a death trap? No. For the war, US armor lost 3 afvs for 2 German lost, on the offensive, advancing at operational speeds never before seen. They worked okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Anyone have any opinions on this book about the Byzantine Empire? http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Byzantine-Empire-ebook/dp/B003UD7QIS/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2 I saw it in the bookstore and it looks fascinating and also accessible. I looked up the author on wiki though and apparently he thinks Obama is a muslim in disguise so welp. So not only is that dumb but I am worried he might have several unsavory biases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyone have any opinions on this book about the Byzantine Empire? edit: I just checked my notes and it turns out I think McGeer has trouble understanding cultural motivations. Read with caution. edit2: still probably better than Bachrach or Morillo. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jan 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:
From some of what I've read about it I am concerned he tries to draw too many parallels between the Byzantine history and modern US foreign policy, which I think is loving stupid for this type of book. But maybe I am incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:From some of what I've read about it I am concerned he tries to draw too many parallels between the Byzantine history and modern US foreign policy, which I think is loving stupid for this type of book. But maybe I am incorrect. Eh, as long as you're looking at the comparisons critically it shouldn't be a problem. Really, I'd be happy for him to go too far and have 3 reasonable comparisons and 3 dumb ones than 1 reasonable and 0 dumb. Showing the relevance of the past to the present is one of the major functions of history, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Where is the best place to download those freebies? Right off of Amazon or archive.org, etc? I've been mainly using Project Gutenberg so far. But I don't really want to threadjack and start talking about places to download ebooks, just wanting some recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Readman posted:I've been mainly using Project Gutenberg so far. But I don't really want to threadjack and start talking about places to download ebooks, just wanting some recommendations. I would download all of Livy's stuff myself. In fact I plan to do so when I get my own kindle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Can someone explain the difference between 20th-century firearm categories? I'm talking post-WWII, here, although discussions on the evolutions of the terms might be interesting in and of themselves. I'm more interested in doctrinal than technical differences. I'll list the ones that I think I comprehend first. Battle rifles are, if I understand, rifles that are capable of semi-automatic fire and possibly automatic or burst fire. Modern ones contain magazines containing between 15-30 full-powered rifle rounds or so. These are different from assault rifles in that they are capable of greater range and accuracy compared to the later rifles. Their doctrinal (US) role nowadays seems to be giving a squad one or two marksmen who can reach out and touch someone beyond the assault riflemen's range. I think my understanding is somewhat in line with conventional definitions. But what about the various machine gun classes? These I can barely make heads or tails of even with Wikipedia's help. What's the operational difference between, say, a light machine gun, a squad automatic, a medium MG, and a heavy MG?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What's the operational difference between, say, a light machine gun, a squad automatic, a medium MG, and a heavy MG? The definitions vary from army to army. Generally speaking, a light machinegun is operated by one or two men in a rifle squad and is usually fired from a bipod. Sometimes it uses assault rifle ammunition to be compatible with the rest of the squad, sometimes full rifle cartridges. Squad Automatic Weapon is a US typification, and there is a significant overlap with the former. Brits call theirs as Light Support Weapon, so there isn't much of a standard in that sense. I think its utility comes when a squad or platoon might have two types of light machineguns, like M249 and M60, to avoid confusion. I don't consider SAW as a real meaningful classification, it is more of a name of convenience. I would find it more useful if it was used only for weapons such as RPK which is a Kalashnikov assault rifle with a bigger magazine and longer barrel. Medium machinegun uses rifle cartridges and is usually operated from a tripod, although sometimes can also be used on a bipod. It requires a small team to operate and to carry the tripod and ammo. Heavy machinegun is like MMG but usually has a heavier caliber, like .50 cal or 14.5mm. They are heavy pieces and not easy to lug around in a battlefield; on the other hand, weight makes them more stable and hence accurate at longer ranges. They also have bigger oomph, which makes them effective against (some) helicopters and light armoured vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Anyone have any opinions on this book about the Byzantine Empire? Read The Wars of Justinian by Propcopius to get a propagandized, contemporary story. Then read his The Secret History for a more honest depiction of what went on in the Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What's the operational difference between, say, a light machine gun, a squad automatic, a medium MG, and a heavy MG? I'll try and make this as easy to read as possible, heh. These are generalized obviously. One important thing to note: the LMG/MMG/HMG designations are really more from the WWII era, postwar we've really moved to using SAWs in the squad fire support role and General Purpose MGs (GPMG) for everything else. In this case, a single weapon (MG42, FN MAG, etc) can fill all 3 roles depending on the tactics and accessories used. The other important thing to remember is that these classifications are based on both on equipment and how they're used tactically, so that makes things more complicated. Squad automatic weapon:
General Purpose machine gun
Light machine gun
Medium machine gun
Heavy machine gun
Well that was clear as mud. Also, the only real difference between a battle rifle and assault rifle is ammo. Battle rifles use full rifle cartridges, assault rifles use .22 caliber class or short .30s. bewbies fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
.22 is not even in the same family as .223, which is what M4's and the like run. Analogous to 5.56mm NATO basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:At what cost, though? There are trade-offs. They couldn't wave a magic wand and turn Shermans into Pershings. I don't know what the cost of making upgunned Shermans 6 months earlier would have been, but it wouldn't have been zero, and something else would have to pay that cost as a result. Considering that US armor performed spectacularly well on an operational and strategic scale, I think there are serious questions as to whether such upgunning would be worth it. If the cost is "there are no TDs", then I don't think it is worth it. More AFVs is better than fewer. The production of Shermans was so immense (around 50,000) that it's doubtful that shifting some amount of production would have damaged overall output in any way significant to actual frontline performance. The real bottleneck wasn't rolling them off the assembly line, it was shipping them across the Atlantic. Procurement of M4s with 76mm guns or even an improved successor to the M4 was already prepared in 1943, what stopped it was not production concerns but the army's adherence to Tank Destroyer doctrine. And again, we're arguing at cross-purposes; the issue is not whether the M4 and Tank Destroyers were able to perform adequately in the right circumstances, but whether a force based around a universal medium tank would have done better--performed as well in offensive engagements as they did in defensive ones like the case you cited, inflicted more German casualties, suffered fewer losses, etc. There's every reason to believe that performance would have been better with armored forces designed for flexibility rather than rigid combat roles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:.22 is not even in the same family as .223, which is what M4's and the like run. Analogous to 5.56mm NATO basically. Dont mix and match 5.56 and .223 ammo unless you know what you're doing. They are not the same and you can cause yourself serious injury by loving around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Hey i hope I don't get banned for posting this in TFR but I am interested in reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Whats the best translation? What should I expect...I've been told its the Chinese Illiad. Is it possible to follow without a pre-existing knowledge of Chinese history?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Hey i hope I don't get banned for posting this in TFR but I am interested in reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Whats the best translation? What should I expect...I've been told its the Chinese Illiad. I don't rightly know, but... this thread isn't in TFR. I'mma talk to one of my Asian history buds down the hall, see what he sez about RotTK. edit: okay, Asian history guy says that you'll probably want to wiki-search Chinese history for that period before you read it but that should be enough. I forgot to ask him about a translation and he just went back to sleep, sorry. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jan 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:
One of the major advantages iron has over bronze is that it is everywhere and cheap. Bronze needs copper, which has never been cheap, and tin, which you need to import from the British isles. Quantity has a quality etc. [edit] woops, that was answered a page ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
1) Why is the stock on a Mosin so short? 2) What is the coolest looking firearm historically used (My vote goes to either the Bren or the Owen gun). 3) Thoughts on Taiwan's chances in a war with China? I like how their mbt is basically an M-48. 4) Are paratroops actually still used, or have high-capacity helicopters pretty much made parachuting obsolete?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:edit: okay, Asian history guy says that you'll probably want to wiki-search Chinese history for that period before you read it but that should be enough. I forgot to ask him about a translation and he just went back to sleep, sorry. Ok sweet. Ya i basically have a wiki level knowledge of Ancient China + about 200 hours of the Dynasty Warriors franchise so hopefully I'm set. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:3) Thoughts on Taiwan's chances in a war with China? I like how their mbt is basically an M-48. Depends on what the Chinese want to do. If they just want to blockade Taiwan they could probably do it. If they want to actually invade, and the Americans don't get in, they might be able to do it but probably not. Taiwan has a huge army and could potentially mobilize millions of men, so any invasion would probably have to be on a scale bigger than Normandy. If the Americans do get in then the world has bigger problems than Taiwan. There are Taiwanese cities within rifle range of the mainland. quote:4) Are paratroops actually still used, or have high-capacity helicopters pretty much made parachuting obsolete? They were used in Iraq. It is widely questioned whether the operation was actually necessary, as opposed to being strictly to "prove" the usefulness of mass parachute jumps. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jan 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
quote:Are paratroops actually still used, or have high-capacity helicopters pretty much made parachuting obsolete Its not so much the case of it being obsolete, there will always be a requirement for it in very specific situations and in the small-scale Special Forces world. The reality of modern warfare however is very much media driven and the potential for astronomical causalities, and the resulting bad press, is considerable after a unsuccessful airborne drop. That's why in part that when it is done (to a certain extent the 173rd in OIF / and to a greater extent the RAF Regiment in Sierra Leone), its in such controlled circumstances that the actual requirement to carry one out is questionable at best. Helicopter enabled operations on the other hand, allow the shuttling of both troops and supplies into an out of the way area and WIA out. It also maintains the fudge factor of being able to lift everyone back out again if everything goes horribly wrong. Obviously Helicopters are very vulnerable if the landing is thought to be contested, but as I stated above, no one in their right mind is going to drop 1000s of potential 24hour news obituaries on top of a prepared enemy position any more, parachute or not. The only way I see it being used in the future is in the initial stages of an invasion against a enemy force, which you have complete domination over before the first boot hits the ground. It still provides a useful force multiplier of sorts, but not at the risk of a massive war loosing cock up. Its not so much a case of heavy lift helicopters making parachuting obsolete, but weapons becoming much more deadly and the general public's causality tolerances bottoming out since world war 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Depends on what the Chinese want to do. If they just want to blockade Taiwan they could probably do it. If they want to actually invade, and the Americans don't get in, they might be able to do it but probably not. Taiwan has a huge army and could potentially mobilize millions of men, so any invasion would probably have to be on a scale bigger than Normandy. If the Americans do get in then the world has bigger problems than Taiwan. What is the deal with China and Taiwan anyway? Is it a puppet state? Is it a part of China? What's going on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What is the deal with China and Taiwan anyway? Is it a puppet state? Is it a part of China? What's going on? Read the wiki. Relations between China and Taiwan have been improving very quickly recently, "a sudden breakout of peace" in the word of The Economist. At this point the chances of war between Taiwan and China are remote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Dont mix and match 5.56 and .223 ammo unless you know what you're doing. They are not the same and you can cause yourself serious injury by loving around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:But the practical difference between the two is vanishingly small, whereas believing .22 is anything like .223 (or even any larger pistol caliber) is a grievous error. To be abundantly clear I assure you that I know the difference between a .22LR and .223, I was referring to assault rifle calibers in the vicinity of .22. This being why I used the word "class".
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What is the deal with China and Taiwan anyway? Is it a puppet state? Is it a part of China? What's going on? Put simply, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rebelled against the Nationalist-led government (KMT)in 1927. This "ended" in 1949 with a KMT retreat to Taiwan, though nothing was signed and officially the government in Taiwan maintains that they're the legitimate Chinese government, while the mainland government includes Taiwan as a province on their maps. For a while the KMT promised to return to mainland China and retake it, though hopes of that more or less finished with the UN's recognition of the CCP government in Beijing in the 70's. There's quite a bit of dialogue between the two sides these days, and trade is going along at a steady pace. It doesn't look like there's going to be any resolution of the political status though, as the status quo works pretty well for both governments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Hey i hope I don't get banned for posting this in TFR but I am interested in reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Whats the best translation? What should I expect...I've been told its the Chinese Illiad. Answered in http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3381055&pagenumber=1#post387001338, by Pfirti86 in TBB. Moss Roberts' version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Can someone explain why the 76mm Sherman was so different from the 75mm Sherman? The numbers make it seem like such a small difference but apparently it had a large effect, why was that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Can someone explain why the 76mm Sherman was so different from the 75mm Sherman? The numbers make it seem like such a small difference but apparently it had a large effect, why was that? The 76mm gun was a completely different gun to the 75mm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1, with almost double the armour penetration, allowing it to penetrate German tanks such as Panthers and Tigers frontally at more than point blank range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Can someone explain why the 76mm Sherman was so different from the 75mm Sherman? The numbers make it seem like such a small difference but apparently it had a large effect, why was that? The difference in caliber is neglible (obviously), the big difference was that the casing of the 76mm gun held a lot more propellant and its barrel was a lot longer, which meant that it could fire a heavier AP projectile a lot faster. I was trying to find a picture of the two shell side by side, this is the closest I could get:  The Sherman's 75mm gun fired the 75x243, the 76mm gun's shell was close to the 75x495 (the Brits "Firefly" tank fired the x583 round which was even more powerful). Note how much more propellant can be carried in the latter. The x243 shell was really not designed as an antitank weapon, it was an "all around" job with an emphasis on HE, the 76mm was a more specific AP platform. Amusing anecdote: originally the 76mm gun was rejected in part because it was so long that it kept running into the ground and poo poo, the installed barrel was about 15 inches shorter than the original one (which took between 5 and 10% of its performance).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:But the practical difference between the two is vanishingly small, whereas believing .22 is anything like .223 (or even any larger pistol caliber) is a grievous error. I agree it's not blindingly retarded like .22-.223, but in the wrong gun a 5.56 round can destroy the chamber, which is probably right next to the shooter's face. The 5.56 has a higher chamber pressure due to the different burn rate/amount of powder, and the casing is actually a little different. You'd probably never notice unless you held them up next to each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
First, I would like to say that I just spent the last few days reading through the entire thread and this is all fantastic stuff. Second, questions! And lots of them. -What's the consensus on McArthur and Montgomery? (My opinion is that they were both egomaniacs who allowed their ego to get in the way of their abilities, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.) -What's the opinion of Ambrose Burnside? Does he deserve the poor reputation that he got? -What exactly WAS the Crimean War? I hear about it a lot, but I have no idea what actually happened. Why the hell was Britain fighting in Russia? Also, if anyone wants to know, I can answer some questions about the War in the Pacific, particularly on The Battle of Leyte Gulf, though I think that if there's any more discussion about the Second World War the thread's going to collapse in upon itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
One of the key issues with Taiwan is whether the Chinese have the naval and aerial capability to get enough troops and tanks onto the island. If Taiwan was a peninsula things would be much grimmer for them, but as it is, China doesn't have all that many aircraft and boats. I suspect that if the US stopped backing Taiwan they could probably just grind them down over time, but as people have mentioned, it's quite unlikely that there'll be a war. Edit: China has been very good at isolating Taiwan internationally. The US is one of a few (23, wiki says) countries that really recognizes Taiwan. Most other countries have been pried away with a combination of stick and carrot diplomacy by China. Question: In that earlier picture of the different tank shells, etc, are any of those the famed German 88? Second question: How useful are helicopter gunships like the Apache and Hind in a war against a 'real' opponent (ie, one that could seriously contest the airspace)? I don't understand how they wouldn't be very easy targets for enemy fighter jets. ManicParroT fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Flying low helps hide them from radar, plus you would throw your fighters in the air to deal with their fighters. Flying alone, yes they're sitting ducks. Airpower is one area where comparing system to system can be completely misleading...there are SO many other things going on around that one system that impact how it works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
I found an interesting story on another forum. Apparently on Iwo Jima, a destroyer off shore picked up transmissions from a Marine tank company in battle. Thought people might be interested in reading it, it's a look into what it might have been like to have been in a tank in battle.quote:Tank Talk
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 04:05
|
|