|
KildarX posted:Head Chef and Sous Chef Honestly they were pretty useless in both wars, loving cool as they are. In World War I they were far too few in number and too inaccurate to make any impact on trench warfare, though the Germans used at least one gun to bombard Paris. (Not that it had much effect doing that either.) In World War II, it was the same thing, plus the problems you already mentioned. The Schwerer Gustav was used in the USSR by the Germans, but it didn't have enough ammo or the accuracy to make any sort of impact. (With a few exceptions of course.) They also tended to heavily damage the track they ran on.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
How about, how useful were armoured trains? I have read that they achieved great things in the East.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
As I recall, "Anzio Annie" was actually a pair of rail guns the Germans would run out of a cave to fire and then go back in to avoid recon and air strikes. I think the spectacle of seeing one of these things in action would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:How about, how useful were armoured trains? I have read that they achieved great things in the East. They saw a lot of use in the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 1900s-1920s, if you're fighting roving bands of peasants along railway tracks. I don't think they are much use against actual armies with tanks and planes and what not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:They saw a lot of use in the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 1900s-1920s, if you're fighting roving bands of peasants along railway tracks. I don't think they are much use against actual armies with tanks and planes and what not. Wasn't the Czechoslovak Legion in the Russian Civil War mainly using an armored train to terrorize the Reds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:How about, how useful were armoured trains? I have read that they achieved great things in the East. Evidently the Poles used them to gently caress up the Nazis. Battle of Mokra posted:(...) the Polish defence was reinforced by the arrival of the Armoured train No. 53, known as Śmiały, which arrived to the battlefield in the very moment the German tanks were crossing the railway line. It stopped in the middle of the German column and opened fire with both of its 75mm guns and its heavy machine guns at close range on the German tanks. The German column was dispersed and retreated with heavy losses, losing a number of Panzer I, and II tanks destroyed or knocked out, while the 19th Regiment crossed the rail road under cover of the armoured train. Although the 19th Regiment suffered heavy losses, it managed to regroup on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:How about, how useful were armoured trains? I have read that they achieved great things in the East. Otherwise, the fact that they're tied to railroads really limits what you can do with them. Sevastopol was probably the biggest use, and even that comes under fire from the strategic wisdom of wanting to siege Sevastopol in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
Armored trains kicked a lot of rear end. They were heavily armed and armored without the need to have the fancy new tank technology. Also, by virtue of being big you could pack big guns, transport troops and have a fancy mobile HQ. Being stuck to railroads wasn't that much of a deal, as the conflicts they were used for revolved around controlling the rail infrastucture to secure supply and troop transport - good luck trekking from Vladivostok on a horse carriage. What really killed them was advances in tank technology and doctrine, along with motorisation of army's logistic tails. I'd say invasion of Poland in '39 was really the last moment of glory for armored trains. [edit] I suppose close air support hosed them up, too, but really it's proper mobile tanks and trucks that made them obsolete. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Armored trains kicked a lot of rear end. They were heavily armed and armored without the need to have the fancy new tank technology. Also, by virtue of being big you could pack big guns, transport troops and have a fancy mobile HQ. Being stuck to railroads wasn't that much of a deal, as the conflicts they were used for revolved around controlling the rail infrastucture to secure supply and troop transport - good luck trekking from Vladivostok on a horse carriage. You don't need an armoured train to move through Siberia, any train works but the basic problem is the same: you can close the road for them really easily. Just remove the tracks or blow up a bridge and the armoured train is going no further. In the worst case a locomotive becomes derailed and then you're really hosed. In Finnish civil war the reds tried to breach the siege of Tampere with an armoured train, but fixing the tracks while under fire is a really hard thing to do. Armoured trains were like armoured personnel carriers stuck to tracks. They could carry troops safely to the front and then give them covering fire as they disembarked, but beyond that the infantry would have to fight on their own. I think they were of most value in a civil war setting because even if your militia routs you can count on most of them running back to the safety of the train rather than scattering all along the countryside. Even if your attack failed, the enemy would not be in a hurry to assault the fortress that the train was, so you could embark the troops and choo-choo away or lick your wounds and renew the attack the next day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I think they were of most value in a civil war setting because even if your militia routs you can count on most of them running back to the safety of the train rather than scattering all along the countryside. Even if your attack failed, the enemy would not be in a hurry to assault the fortress that the train was, so you could embark the troops and choo-choo away or lick your wounds and renew the attack the next day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Armored trains were extremely useful in Poland and Russia during the interwar period because apart from the railroads there was next to no real transportation infrastructure, so an armored train could act in a similar fashion to a mechanized column. Combine that with the lack of serious, dedicated anti-armor weapons in the conflicts of the time (namely the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War, where both sides were mainly foot soldiers and cavalry chasing each other across the vast empty steppes, possibly with horse-drawn artillery support if they were lucky) and you can see why the Poles kept a large number of armored trains around up to 1939.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You don't need an armoured train to move through Siberia, any train works but the basic problem is the same: you can close the road for them really easily. Everything you said is pretty much correct, but I think you slightly misread my intent. I did not mean to state the armored trains were crucial to transporting supply themselves, but the rail infrastructure itself was. The armored trains were a great tool to assert one's control over it. Bear in mind that in the era the trains were used, mobility of other armored assets was also limited, it's not like you could wheeze through forests in Mark tanks like it ain't no thing. They did get outdated pretty quickly, but during their time they were pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:
Not so outdated as you might think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajina_express
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
In 1944, armored trains were used during the Slovak National Uprising. Even though they were regularly attacked by the Luftwaffe, they managed to repulse German ground assaults, remained operational and dominated the rail network until the uprising ran out of steam and the trains were dismantled and their crews retreated to join the partisans. So yeah, it would seem that the concept wasn't quite antiquated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
The uprising ran out of steam or the trains? OR BOTH?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Not so outdated as you might think. Armored trains have also seen use in the Second Chechen War. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36077
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:What is the history of war gaming? I just saw a book about that at the military library. Next time I'm there I'll see if I can get the title. It looked interesting though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Any good books/documentaries/podcasts/semi not dumb movies about the Boshin War?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:The uprising ran out of steam or the trains? OR BOTH? The uprising. Steam locomotives don't run out of steam, they run out of fuel to produce the steam. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:The uprising. Steam locomotives don't run out of steam, they run out of fuel to produce the steam. They can run out of water, too
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:They can run out of water, too Drat, I've been outsperged! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
You could also have an issue with the boiler I was talking with my dad about the psychological effects of the color black, and mentioned the withdrawn Hugo Boss SS uniforms. But are there any other examples of uniforms designed specifically to intimidate (instead of acquiring a fearsome reputation from the unit associated with them)? And can anyone track down that article that said that as Germany was losing the war, they turned increasingly to nihilistic unit insignia and rhetoric? billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
You could also enter an environment devoid of atmospheric oxygen.  As for intimidating uniforms, flying hussars come to mind:  I also think that pretty much any headgear that features feathers or other apparently useless and decorative elements was designed with intimidation and inspiring respect and awe in mind. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I also think that pretty much any headgear that features feathers or other apparently useless and decorative elements was designed with intimidation and inspiring respect and awe in mind. It's more that if you're in a packed melee and want to know which way 'your guys' are then you need something bright and colourful to identify them. Something that won't be blocked from line of sight by all the people around you. Headgear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's more that if you're in a packed melee and want to know which way 'your guys' are then you need something bright and colourful to identify them. Weren't the high bearskin / mitre caps of grenadiers, the opulent high hats of the Janissaries etc. also supposed to give an impression of height and strength?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:26
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Weren't the high bearskin / mitre caps of grenadiers, the opulent high hats of the Janissaries etc. also supposed to give an impression of height and strength? Pretty much, but the colourful and semi-unique uniforms main purpose was for identification on the gun powder choked battlefields of 17th to the mid 19th century. Worked in tandem with the standards and music of the eras too. Then smokeless powder, long range radio communication, camoflage and rifled weaponry did all that away to the parade ground.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
The most opulent uniforms were worn by men who would never come anywhere close to seeing the enemy eye to eye - admirals and generals. The bombastic looks weren't just to intimidate your enemy in combat, but more importantly it was to emphasize your power to your peers, henchmen, civilians etc. "It's the best pussy magnet I know. The eagle does it, I think." / 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The most opulent uniforms were worn by men who would never come anywhere close to seeing the enemy eye to eye - admirals and generals. The bombastic looks weren't just to intimidate your enemy in combat, but more importantly it was to emphasize your power to your peers, henchmen, civilians etc. Its not the eagle, its the moustache. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Headgear. Melees really went downhill after the introduction of headgear, everybody just stood around comparing them and trading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The most opulent uniforms were worn by men who would never come anywhere close to seeing the enemy eye to eye - admirals and generals. The bombastic looks weren't just to intimidate your enemy in combat, but more importantly it was to emphasize your power to your peers, henchmen, civilians etc. Ugh, loving hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
I'm currently reading Anthony Beevor's account of D-Day, and he's made several references to petard bombs being shot by AVREs as a means of destroying fortifications. I know that AVREs are Churchill tanks modified for other duties, but I can't find any reference to petards. Weren't those medieval-era siege weapons?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm currently reading Anthony Beevor's account of D-Day, and he's made several references to petard bombs being shot by AVREs as a means of destroying fortifications. I know that AVREs are Churchill tanks modified for other duties, but I can't find any reference to petards. Weren't those medieval-era siege weapons? Actually, giant mortars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#Variants My knowledge of these stems from how hilariously awesome they are in Company of Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
nacon posted:Actually, giant mortars: Also known as the "Flying Dustbin", if that gives you an idea of the scale involved. There's more with photos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart%27s_Funnies
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The most opulent uniforms were worn by men who would never come anywhere close to seeing the enemy eye to eye - admirals and generals. The bombastic looks weren't just to intimidate your enemy in combat, but more importantly it was to emphasize your power to your peers, henchmen, civilians etc. Note his tiny left arm  In all pictures of him (official ones anyway), he holds a sword or hides his left arm somehow.Also, he had his own, patented mustache wax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Any good books/documentaries/podcasts/semi not dumb movies about the Boshin War? Check out the movie When the Last Sword is Drawn, which covers the Shinsengumi. There's also been a ton of japanese drama series about the Shinsengumi. NHK do a one-year drama series every year, with a huge budget, and the 2004 series was actually called Shinsengumi. These series can be a bit slow sometimes, given that they divide the happenings into 50 episodes and repeat a lot, but they are genereally good at covering historical events without diverting from the facts too much, even if they do tend to push the pathos over the top. http://wiki.d-addicts.com/Shinsengumi The 2010 drama series, Ryoma Den, also covers the events. The series follows Sakamoto Ryoma, who happened to be a leading force in the struggle to overturn the Tokugawa rule. It covers the development of the navy and some of the personal power struggles of the movement. Again, they really idolize Ryoma in this drama, so take the personal portraits with a huge grain of salt. http://wiki.d-addicts.com/Ryoma_den I have no idea how easy it is to find these with subtitles, but since they are the biggest drama series in Japan it should be possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Not so outdated as you might think. 1995? Try again. Armoured trains have been used as recently as 2011! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44217756/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/all-aboard-armored-train-north-koreas-kim-jong-il-visits-russia/
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
nacon posted:Actually, giant mortars: All this time I'd assumed petards were a type of trouser 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Is there a good argument to dissuade people who still admire the Nazis? Using the reviews for Richard J. Evan's fantastic Third Reich Trilogy for example: http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Reich-at-War/product-reviews/1594202060/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0 (and ignoring the reviews about the admittedly terrible Kindle version), Some people seem unwilling or unable to outright denounce the Nazis. Most complaints of the book seem based on the idea that you can just separate Nazi war crimes and racial policy from the events of the Second World War. Evans, and I'm totally in agreement with him here, says that the causes and conduct of the war are totally linked with Nazi racial policy and the crimes committed as a result. Basically all those people crying "Why can't we discuss the heroic victories of the Third Reich over the equally bad, and probably even worse Communists without mentioning alleged war crimes?" make me extremely uncomfortable. Basically, is there any really good way to make someone see that as "cool" as the Wehrmacht and SS might be, they were still willing participants in horrific crimes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Basically, is there any really good way to make someone see that as "cool" as the Wehrmacht and SS might be, they were still willing participants in horrific crimes? This is more in the realm of ethics, psychology, and public speaking than military history. I mean besides showing them the Wikipedia article on German war crimes of WW2. There's not much you can do from a strictly historical standpoint to prove that the Wehrmacht and SS beyond a shadow of a doubt where the most evil and did the most horrible war crimes in the history of the world. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
KildarX posted:There's not much you can do from a strictly historical standpoint to prove that the Wehrmacht and SS beyond a shadow of a doubt where the most evil and did the most horrible warcrimes in the history of the world. That's a pretty nonsensical statement. How do you even define "the most evil"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 20:43
|
|
