|
This stuff is fascinating. Know anything about the early years of gunpowder war? At what point were firearms considered a viable weapon as opposed to a sideshow that frightened horses and levies? The 16th century? The 17th? How did tactics change as a result? From my weak understanding of the period, it seems like there was just a sudden and abrupt jump between spears, bows, and swords to the arquebus. My understanding must be flawed, so maybe you could tell me about the adoption of hand-held firearms in Europe?
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
I was under the impression (mistaken, maybe) that nuclear arms simply were not ready by the time Germany surrendered. edit: not that I disagree about the racism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
Sandwolf posted:I hate how threads like these always turn into "Let's Talk About World War II." I ain't no expert but judging by the fact that Rome survived and Carthage didn't I'd have to hand the belt to Scipio. edit: beaten like Carthage
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
^^: For small arms, at least, I'd guess that a lot of supplies (especially ammunition) were dealt with by issuing pounds of lead and gunpowder to the various units, which would then use bullet molds and fill up their apostles or cartridges, depending on era. But then what about spare parts? And cannonballs? Those were iron! I see your point. Chade Johnson posted:Oh ok we murdered foreigners in later wars, so it makes it ok to murder Americans. These were people just trying to survive a war that was taking place hundred of miles away. They weren't soldiers or even guerilla fighters. The fact that some people see him as a great general is sickening. He wasn't pounding Baghdad with artillery from a computer, he was pillaging and starving his own people. He caused a lot of deaths. I don't think we're saying that makes him a nice man. He's our favorite because he's interesting. And all that starvation and horror helped break the South. Without that the bastards might have fought on. What the United States needed was unconditional surrender, and that's what it got. 
Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
Was there any one battle that lead western European powers to go 'gently caress it, this knight and arrows bullshit is finished' or was there more of a gradual change towards more shot-heavy armies? I know that the Spanish tercios experienced a gradual change over their lifetimes, but then there were dramatic and to my vision sudden leaps in gunpowder warfare such as Jan Zizka's wagons from the Hussite wars. Were there any battles that really cemented that guns were the new in thing? edit: also can a Brit tell me a little bit about your civil war?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 08:35
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:A few war history overview articles that are quite interesting. I'mma quote something from this guy: this guy posted:... the C.S.S. Hunley. About 12 meters long with a crew of two officers and six sailors, it was powered by steam.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:XII (the warrior king, my rear end. Fucker singlehandedly lost us our status as a great power. /derail) In a military history thread that's nowhere near a derail. Speak!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 13:17
|
|
|
Rapacity posted:I've really enjoyed this thread and, as a great number of questions are about WWII, I can't recommend the documentary The World at War highly enough. It was broadcast in 1973 and, as such, contains a great number of first hand interviews and accounts of the war from the perspective of most major nations involved. Hey guys, quoting this from several months ago. It deserves to be seen again and I'm seeing a lot of nicks here I don't remember. edit: disregard, the video got a DMCA. I'll try to find a working link tomorrow. edit 2: some are up, and some are down. Will flesh out tomorrow if zee germans don't get me. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Oct 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
Agreed. Can you tell us anything about the role of the Ottoman Empire in WWI?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:How did Russia maintain sovereignty over so much land in the 18th and 19th centuries? They have always been the largest 'western' country. What kept the locals loyal to the Tsar when Moscow was thousands of miles away? Also, how come they didn't expand more in the Far East? It seems that they could have taken Mongolia, northern China, and possibly Korea and made them Russian colonies during the mid 19th century before Japan became a world power. I've taken a class on Chinese history and read a book on Russian history, so hopefully I don't butcher this too badly (if I do then please correct me): Russia didn't fully 'expand' into the lands it claimed until the mid-19th century. Until then, the locals probably didn't even know that their lands were property of the Tsar. These areas weren't really incorporated into the Russian state until after the 1917 revolution. The reasons the Russian tsars didn't try to expand to the east much was because of simple logistics. It was hard to march an army across Russia to China. As far as I know it was only done a couple times in the 16th century, and both times ended in rather ignominious Russian defeats; the Tsar ended up ceding eastern lands to China each time. This is the main reason (aside from difficulties on the home front) that the Russians didn't participate in the great chinese land-grab following the Opium Wars as fast as the other European powers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:...and if you didn't live near the sea? Pour salt into lakewater and then boil it, duh  As far as I'm aware, human cultures tend (with enough exceptions to make it a weak tendency) to accumulate near places with both fresh and salt water, like, say, the Nile delta or the Greek city-states or Tenochtitlan (if I remember right, at least part of the lake there was salty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Hey, I posted the following in response to a question about Russian sovereignty and Sino-Russian relations in the colonial era, but I'm really not certain about it. The question: Konstantin posted:How did Russia maintain sovereignty over so much land in the 18th and 19th centuries? They have always been the largest 'western' country. What kept the locals loyal to the Tsar when Moscow was thousands of miles away? Also, how come they didn't expand more in the Far East? It seems that they could have taken Mongolia, northern China, and possibly Korea and made them Russian colonies during the mid 19th century before Japan became a world power. Grand Prize Winner posted:I've taken a class on Chinese history and read a book on Russian history, so hopefully I don't butcher this too badly (if I do then please correct me): Any chance someone could correct me here? And/or provide more details? The second part's a really interesting question, and I'd love to know more about it. It kinda got lost in the tank fight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
That really depends on who has more supplies of food/whether the defenders expect a rescue. If the defenders could hold out and maintain some semblance of hygiene, then they'd probably be a little less likely than the besiegers to suffer disease outbreaks since they're housed in buildings as opposed to questionable tents. When it came to actually breaking a siege through combat, the defenders had a definite advantage in most of pre-gunpowder history*. Barring a successful undermining of the walls or a handy traitor to keep the gate open, common wisdom was that you shouldn't try to force a breach unless you outnumber the defenders by 3 to 1 or more. * e: I was wrong! Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How does war, which from my point of view is pretty messy already, get to be described as messy? In my extensive experience nuclear war tends to be far, far messier than, say, the Somme.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
I've got me a hankering to learn a little bit about WW1-era small unit tactics or the lack thereof, whichever may be the case. Can you guys direct me to any sources that talk about the differences between Russian, German, and Western Entente organization at the squad to platoon level?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Burning Beard posted:Actually tactics did develop during WWI on the Western front. The Germans, by 1916 (I Think) were well entrenched with Assault Groups (referred to as Stormtroopers) that were trained to infiltrate in small groups under cover of smoke, gas or whatever. I have some pictures of these guys and they are loaded with knives, grenades, the first SMGs, pistols, you name it. The British and French had something like it but it was not nearly as refined. The concept of Stormtroopers served as the basis for German Tactical Doctrine in WWII with informal battle-groups assembled to undertake a particular task.(Kampfgruppen). Any chance you could spare a few words with regards to the Spanish Civil War? As in, what was learned from it, what wasn't and should have been, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
That brings up an interesting question: can anyone in the historian-ing trades hazard a guess why the History channel (and most other documentary channels) went to poo poo so completely this decade?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but by 1983 wasn't the Warsaw Pact's military mostly made of rust?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Have any of you guys noticed that the British Royal Navy has a tendency to name its bases like they were ships? For example, when the brits took Fort St. Angelo (look under "The British Period") for a naval base, the called it HMS Egremont. What's the deal with that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
Either way, it ends with Russian tanks in Berlin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Plus gay black Hitler would have gotten into the The Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, either with some artistic flare or sleeping with the Dean. Dammit guys stop loving with Hitler!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Any of y'all know of good sources on engagements of the Hussite wars? Doesn't matter to me whether it's pop-history or serious scholarly works, although I don't wanna spend more than 40 bucks on a book if I can avoid it. Also, is it true that the Hussites were some of the first full-on gunpowder armies? In my head the traditions of land combat in Europe kind of go from the 'chivalric' style of endless chevauchee and interminable loving sieges of the high middle ages to the Hussite wagenberg and handgonne field fortifications, which weren't mobile enough to be fully effective so you then see pike-and-shotte formations that gradually up the percentage of 'shotte' until by the late 17th century there's pretty much no pike left. Am I missing anything dramatic?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Speaking of samurai, I once saw a picture of a samurai who had a big sheet tied to his neck and waist. As he road, the sheet inflated and was supposed to deflect arrows. Was a sheet used like this, and was it effective? It was called a horo, and yes. Later models sorta consisted of these silk sheets being hung over a globular wooden frame instead of just billowing out as the horseman rode along. I get the impression that it didn't really stop arrows so much as slow them down to the point that they didn't have sufficient force to break through the guy's armor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
What about from the other side of things? As in what if Uncle Joe takes off his friendly pants and thrusts all the way to the Atlantic after Berlin? vvv: Tonight on the History Channel: Gay Cyborgs of the Luftwaffe! Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Oct 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
How about we change things up a little. Can anyone tell me about Sumerian militaries and how they fared against each other and other powers of the area? I'm given to understand that Akkad may have fielded the first infantry armor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
Has the military procurement process always seemed as stupid to outsiders as it does now? Is it as stupid as it seems?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Hey, I'm all of a sudden super-interested in Soviet-Steppe relationships, primarily during WW2 but also in general, especially how martial ethos ideas in both cultures developed and interacted, and how military integration of steppe people affected the steppes and the Red Army. Any good literature on the steppes during the Revolution and especially during WW2? Red Cavalry is a series of fictionalized news dispatches from a Russian Jewish reporter who was embedded in Cossack cavalry units during the Polish-Soviet war. It's fiction, but it's based on Isaac Babel's actual experience, and it's apparently close enough that Babel's career was pretty much ruined after Budyonny (probably spelling that wrong) rose high in the Party hierarchy. edit: the action in the book happens in Poland, not the Steppes, but involves the Cossacks and I think they count as steppe people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Speaking of the Civil War, Gary Brecher over at exiledonline did a neat little writeup of Ben Grierson, who showed the damned Rebs a thing or two. Speaking of which, what do all you serious war scholars think of his column in general?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Africa from 1945 to present day is one of the most illogical, senseless and depressing but interesting places/times in my opinion. Agreed. Where else would you get General Butt Naked?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
I think he does, and isn't he right? Clippers were amazingly fast but their sails required a lot more manpower than coal-fired engines so once coal became cheaper than manpower they were unsustainable. By the 1940s or so there were pretty much no civilian sailing ships left that weren't pleasure craft. I remember reading something about the last clipper ships serving into the 1930s in the South Pacific hauling coal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:E: It was basically an ideological move. The right, and the right-wing of the Social Democrats, wanted to move to a professional army since conscription didn't fit well with respecting the right of the individual and all that jazz. The left wanted to keep it as well as expand conscription to include women, in the name of ensuring an army of and by the people. The idea of conscription being a tool for social justice never occurred to this American. Over here our left wing is deeply and almost universally opposed to anything resembling conscription (the draft, as we call it in the states).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Only the Finns come close [to the US] at coordinating tubes. The Finns? How'd they come close? Better C3 training? Better comm equipment? By the by, the impression that I'm getting from this thread is that the US had the best electronics suite of all the WWII belligerents. T/F?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:Yeah that might be the Austrians and their self-inflicted defeat at Karansebes youre thinking of. Except of course that the whole thing may not have happened (the first sentence on the article you linked sez it's "probably apocryphal"). Sure would make for a good movie, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
A speedometer, maybe? I seem to remember the V1 using something similar, except it counted the number rotations until it was roughly over London, at which point the thing would angle downward and crash into the city.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
Didn't the US military tend to overestimate the effectiveness of Soviet tech during the Cold War, though?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
That's entirely reasonable. Maybe the difference in training is the cause, but could production/storage be a factor? I don't know poo poo about insurgent weapons in Iraq/Afghanistan, but are they modern Russian production, Soviet leftovers, or pre-invasion local production? If they're soviet leftovers I could imagine storage having an impact on their effectiveness, and if they're local production, then maybe they're not up to the same quality control standards as the Soviet models were.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Not to sound like a fool then, but how did the Zeros kick so much rear end in the early war? Or did they?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2011 02:08
|
|