|
Nenonen posted:Thread taken over by political discussion over XYZ. Exterminate. Cod save the King?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Thread taken over by political discussion over XYZ. Exterminate. I really can't see how zeppelin attacks can be dangerous to any moving object. You could see those fat bastards from a mile away and simply walk away from their path. They were better off sending Germans in glides with a grenade belt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Mans posted:I really can't see how zeppelin attacks can be dangerous to any moving object. You could see those fat bastards from a mile away and simply walk away from their path. They were better off sending Germans in glides with a grenade belt. I don't think the idea behind the poster is 'you'll be safer in the trenches than back home!' - because that's bananas. More that it's more honourable to die as a soldier than risk being killed like a bitch while shirking your duty to serve your country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
zokie posted:The idea is simply: If you want to vote and participate in ruling our country you better be ready to defend it! When Sweden adopted universal (male) sufferage in the eary nineties they wrote: I presume you mean the 1890s and not the 1990s!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:France had conscription for hundreds of years, in the form of a feudal ballot system. The revolutionary government expanded this system upon taking power. The levee en mass, what I assume you mean when you say "modern conscription" was created by the dictatorial government of the Committee for Public Safety to put down counter-revolution, particularly in the Vendee (where up to quarter of a million Frenchmen died). I'm not sure I agree. Attempting to conscript in the Vendee was one of the causes of the Vendee revolt - you've got cause and effect precisely reversed. It was instituted because a poo poo ton of foreign powers were invading France to overthrow the (elected) National Assembly and restore the absolute monarchy. In practice the Committee of Public Safety acted as a dictatorship, sure, but J Random Frenchman didn't know that. They were a democratically-elected emergency government as far as they were concerned. They were to prove sadly disappointed, but a lot of the Frenchmen who were part of the levee and fought and died at places like Valmy did in fact believe they were fighting for democracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:WW1 artillery used recalculated tables for the math involved. Battery officers had to do a lot of crunching to plan an attack. This really cut into the number of recalculated or pre-registered points you can prepare and artillery flexibility was essentially nonexistent. A great deal of reliance was placed on aerial spotting and directly spurred the development of military aviation. I mostly agree with the points your making, but I don't think it is fair to say that the French and British Imperial forces weren't able to adept as the Germans were. The great gains made by the Germans in 1918 were against overextended forces and were not to the same standard as the Allies faced when they launched their offensives in 1917 and 1918. When the Storm Troopers had to attack heavily entrenched and fortified Allied forces- as at Vimy in 1918- their reliance on mass, manoeuvre and portable firepower proved unable to negotiate the enemy's defences. The German army of 1918 did not have the technical sophistication, equipment and training to neutralize British and French defensive strength completely through these means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
Contingency Plan posted:I'd like to know more about Scotland's navy. Were they ever a naval power? Was their fleet ever a match for England's? Not really, although Scotland had a respectable navy for its size in the late medieval period and some notable ships such as Great Michael, which was the largest warship in Europe at the time. Earlier in the medieval period, the Kingdom of the Isles maintained a larger fleet than England did (or any other nation in the British Isles) with I believe several hundred galleys of varying sizes; the Kingdom of the Isles relied on control of the sea and so had to maintain a rather large navy in comparison to its status and importance. The Kingdom of the Isles became the Lordship of the Isles, a nominal vassal of the Kingdom of Scotland, but was functionally independent and often hostile to the Kingdom of Scotland, invading it several times (most notably in 1411, which culminated in the Battle of Harlaw) and sometimes dealing with England diplomatically for mutual advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Here's another question about World War 1: How effective were tanks (on both sides)? Were they a decisive weapons system, or mostly an idea that couldn't (yet) be properly implemented?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:23
|
|
DTurtle posted:Here's another question about World War 1: They were crude bulky things prone to breaking down more or getting stuck in the mud without planning ahead route wise, but they still had a huge impact on morale. There was only really one tank on tank battle in the entire war at Cambrai. I personally think they did help quite a bit, though in different ways instead of a single strong one.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Something of an alternate history question, what would have happened if Germany won WWI? Would there have been a difference if they had won by managing to seize Paris in 1914 or if they barely held out and "won" in 1918? What if World War I never happened at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:42
|
|
Farecoal posted:Something of an alternate history question, what would have happened if Germany won WWI? Would there have been a difference if they had won by managing to seize Paris in 1914 or if they barely held out and "won" in 1918? What if World War I never happened at all? I expect they would have held a certain former French province and cherry picked what they liked from both British and French Empires whilst letting Austria-Hungary have what they grabbed from the Russians. The Royal Navy would have to hand over quite a few pretty ships too, to ensure the German Imperial Navy is the new top dog too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Here's another question about World War 1:  The French were also big on exploring tank designs and came up with all sorts of bizzare ideas such as the Boirault Machine that was designed to flatten terrain.  It was clear that an armored tractor was the go and in 1917 what's known as the predecessor to the modern tank, the Renault FT, was created with it's advantages of a crew of two and a rotating turret. The design hung around as a hand-me-down tank up to 1948. The Germans barely had any. There's one that was captured by Australian forces sitting in the Museum of Queensland. They focused heavily on anti tank with high levels of success at the Battle of Armines. They did dabble in their love for oversize tanks with the K-Wagen which was pressed into production by Hindenburg despite it's impractical nature. Hitler reportedly had a wooden model for study.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I expect they would have held a certain former French province and cherry picked what they liked from both British and French Empires whilst letting Austria-Hungary have what they grabbed from the Russians. I wonder if Britain actually would've gave much. Given the limit on planes at the time and the Royal Navy still being king of the ocean I'd imagine any peace being tough on continental Europe while Britain basically got more of a free pass, maybe some minor colonial changes to get Germany to shut up since Britain was always safe and could just threaten to try to blockade the entirety of western Europe if need be. I've heard speculation that they may have annexed Belgium, and possibly a few French areas and given the new border pressured the Dutch into an economic union where Germany would inevitably dominate and the Netherlands wind up being almost a satellite nation of Germany.(or baring that Germany just getting some really drat good trade deals out of Dutch colonies). I'd imagine too Germany would make France pay up a lot of francs. I'd imagine at least a protectorate over Belgium and a large demilitarized zone along the border on the French side. John Charity Spring posted:Not really, although Scotland had a respectable navy for its size in the late medieval period and some notable ships such as Great Michael, This is actually pretty cool, I'm giving the wikipedia article on Scotland's navy a look over since it's just never occurred to me Scotland had a navy at one point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Had the defeat had been bitter and bloody, I think the United Kingdom would have no choice but to hand over both possessions as she still has crippling war debt and no 'reperations' to cover some of it. While we're on the subject, would this victorious alternate post WW1 Germany go head to head with the Austrian Hungarian Empire in the forties?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Thread taken over by political discussion over XYZ. Exterminate. Don't be a tool, there was only one good reason to sign up--  No Hun's gonna take my half-beard, praise Cod. On a more serious note, firstworldwar.com has a great section of propaganda posters. Other than this one, I think my personal favourite is the one depicting a Hunnish soldier being fat and drunk, lazing about in his chair while his wife cowers in the corner after (presumably) a severe beating, with other panels showing him spearing a baby on a pike, throwing bombs like an anarchist, and being a congenial businessman(!). Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Despite their apparent evils of telling you what to think, I do enjoy looking at Propaganda posters too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Despite their apparent evils of telling you what to think, I do enjoy looking at Propaganda posters too. World War 1 propaganda posters are so wonderfully tacky. World War 2 ones on the other hand are god drat depressing, because the allied posters actually UNDERestimated the evil and brutality of the Axis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
 LOYAL MEN OF ENGLAND, Would you let the Hun destroy this Hobbit village? PROTECT OUR FEY ALLIES AND THEIR TINY STRUCTURES! ENLIST TODAY!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 06:50
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:World War 1 propaganda posters are so wonderfully tacky. World War 2 ones on the other hand are god drat depressing, because the allied posters actually UNDERestimated the evil and brutality of the Axis. There were some tacky WWII posters too...  I think those are song lyrics...   I rode with invisible Hitler to work this morning?!  I too remember the giant disembodied head we dropped on Japan.  Okay, not that tacky but :we forgot:
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Sure, a lot of WWI propaganda was tacky as hell, but you did occasionally get something that was really loving poignant: Text on top says (seriously) "None shall pass".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Text on top says (seriously) "None shall pass". Just a flesh wound! This, of course, is another beautiful classic, and boobs always are a sure way to catch young men's attention. Inspiration for King Kong?  This Australian anti-war advertisement on the other hand makes me sad  
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:They were crude bulky things prone to breaking down more or getting stuck in the mud without planning ahead route wise, but they still had a huge impact on morale. Huge impact ... on morale? I was of the impression that they were instrumental in breaking trench warfare, and especially at Cambrai when they had "light" tanks for exploitation on top of the Mark I's for the initial breakthrough. Was the return of mobile warfare less a result of tanks and had more to do with better tactics and/or the draining of German manpower?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Huge impact ... on morale? I was of the impression that they were instrumental in breaking trench warfare, and especially at Cambrai when they had "light" tanks for exploitation on top of the Mark I's for the initial breakthrough. No, that is not really true. WWI-era tanks could cross no man's land and more often than not reach the enemy trench, but they were too slow and too prone to breakdowns to exploit any breakthrough. At Cambrai tanks helped the the British advance some 5 miles, but they lost 75% of their tank force and Germans retook almost all of the the gained ground less than two weeks later. Tanks did not re-introduce mobile warfare, and I'm not sure it's even relevant to talk about mobile warfare on the western front until the 100 days offensive and the headlong German retreats at the very end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:42
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:
The top line is more nuanced, and you might translate it as "None shall pass us". The bottom, as near as I can translate it, reads: Two times I held on and vanquished on the Marne. Countryman, my brother, The sneak attack of the "white peace" will assault you on your turn. Like me, you must hold and vanquish, be strong and cunning. Beware of Boche hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Huge impact ... on morale? I was of the impression that they were instrumental in breaking trench warfare, and especially at Cambrai when they had "light" tanks for exploitation on top of the Mark I's for the initial breakthrough. They were fantastic for breaking through the first line of trenches, but then that was never a serious problem when there was proper preparation. The main problems preventing them from becoming breakthrough weapons was that they a) had no radios so couldn't co-ordinate at all and b)all broke down before clearing the German battle zone. The return to mobile warfare was really a result of the Allies finally getting a grip on the tactic of making an intense bombardment of one sector, using that bombardment to establish a 'box' that German reinforcements couldn't enter and thus couldn't counter attack and then capturing and biting down on the front one or two German lines without attempting to overextend. You only gain a mile or two each time, but at comparatively low casualties and at a different place in the line each week the Allies were able to rapidly make the entire German line untenable and force a withdrawal. And again. And again. And then suddenly the Germans ran out of prepared lines to withdraw to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Did Germany have victory bonds in World War I? What sort of interest rates did they reach near the end of the war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:No, that is not really true. WWI-era tanks could cross no man's land and more often than not reach the enemy trench, but they were too slow and too prone to breakdowns to exploit any breakthrough. At Cambrai tanks helped the the British advance some 5 miles, but they lost 75% of their tank force and Germans retook almost all of the the gained ground less than two weeks later. Tanks did not re-introduce mobile warfare, and I'm not sure it's even relevant to talk about mobile warfare on the western front until the 100 days offensive and the headlong German retreats at the very end. Okay, thank you for the lesson. And yes, when I said 'mobile warfare' I was mostly referring to the 100 Days Offensive. Speaking of which, how far into Germany did the Entente penetrate into before the Germans surrender? I know for sure it wasn't anything like V-E Day 1945. EDIT: Alchenar posted:The return to mobile warfare was really a result of the Allies finally getting a grip on the tactic of making an intense bombardment of one sector, using that bombardment to establish a 'box' that German reinforcements couldn't enter and thus couldn't counter attack and then capturing and biting down on the front one or two German lines without attempting to overextend. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Speaking of which, how far into Germany did the Entente penetrate into before the Germans surrender? I know for sure it wasn't anything like V-E Day 1945. The 100 days offensive never actually penetrated into Germany. The German military command realized that the war was lost and called for the armistice before that. Sadly, the fact that the Entente armies never entered Germany was also one of the reasons that the "Stab in the back" myth could take root, since the populace never actually saw the army defeated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
The end of WW1 also saw the rise and fall of Alsace Soviet Republic. It was formed on November 10th and its glorious history ended when the French troops occupied it on November 22nd. Never forget 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
There's also Bavarian Soviet Republic and possibly dozens of other socialist/nationalist revolutionary states across Europe. The end of WW1 was an incredibly chaotic affair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
quote:
  Kaiser Ludendorf who the two on the right? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:
Beardo is Tirpitz. I don't know the third one - I would love to say Hitler, but... also "And the survivor is also wounded in the head because they didn't give us helmets! Great fun!" VVVV Nenonen fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Oh god, I love this. "One of us is dead! Join up!" Doesn't seem like the strongest advertising to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:
That's Hindenburg above the kaiser. No idea who the remaining guy is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Beardo is Tirpitz. I don't know the third one - I would love to say Hitler, but... I think that's Hindenburg not Ludendorff actually. I'm drawing a blank on the third guy - there weren't many German high-ups who didn't wear a big ol' beard. Could be someone like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manfred_von_Richthofen.jpeg I guess? (and the chances of them putting a random motorcycle despatch rider on a propaganda poster alongside the German high command are rather slim, don't you think? Not to mention Hitler had a hell of a moustache at this point)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
beep beep best ww1 poster coming through
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I think that's Hindenburg not Ludendorff actually. I'm drawing a blank on the third guy - there weren't many German high-ups who didn't wear a big ol' beard. Could be someone like The Hitler comment was a joke.  He seems to have a tiny moustache, unlike our good Baron. So it can't be him... could it be Karl I of Austria? It bears vague resemblance. The cap is weird, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
My first thought was Scheer, but then I thought the leftmost dude was Ludendorff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:beep beep best ww1 poster coming through Disturbing when you think about it. 'Literally kill me right now and turn me into a drink for the sake of the war effort!'. Given the casualty rates in the trenches it's disturbingly apposite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Oh god, I love this. "One of us is dead! Join up!" Doesn't seem like the strongest advertising to me. Keep in mind it's coming from the culture where "Once more unto the breach or close the wall up with our dead" is considered inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 20:01
|
|
