Ask me about Military History!

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

AgentF posted:

When they attacked Pearl Harbour, how did this involve the US in WW2, as opposed to simply starting a small American-Japanese war that ran separately alongside WW2?

Germany declared war on the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

# ¿ Jun 10, 2010 22:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:16

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

A thought of mine about the Japanese, is why did the officers run around with swords during ww2?

I realise they never went through ww1 when the Germans were encouraged to shoot the British with the thin legs or waving a pistol around. But surely they understood that making the guy in charge identifiable from a distance was not the best idea?

Or maybe its a myth I have culturally absorbed and Japanese officers did not go into battle waving around swords.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2010 23:02

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

lilljonas posted:

stuff

You missed out the war with Britain.

To be fair it was a rather lacklustre war not pursued very vigerously be either belligerant, but it probably counts as the friendliest war in military history ever fought.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2010 20:13

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Iron Squid posted:

Is American football an equivalent to ritualized combat that primitive peoples engage in?

No, its a bastardised version of rugby with all the fun and excitement removed.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2010 20:59

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

lilljonas posted:

WW2 is really not my strong suit, but is it correct to assume that the mere threat of AA guns forced the bombers to a higher altitude and do night time bombing, thereby decreasing accuracy and effectiveness?

Yes, bombers where forced to fly higher. Night time bombing was widely innacurate, and the RAF started to drop bombs on houses rather than factories in 1942.

If the RAF dropped a bomb within 5 miles of where it was aiming it was doing well.

The Americans loaded up their bombers with machine guns and dropped bombs during the day time as they were precision bombing militairy targets.

Only 20% of the USAAF bombs landed in the precision target area of 1000 feet, falling to 7% by the end of the war.

But the allies, and in particular America, learned drop enough bombs somewhere on a country and sooner or later you will gently caress it up.

Germany was a practice run for Cambodia and Vietnam.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2010 22:45

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

bewbies posted:

I've always been kind of appalled that more hasn't been done on WWI. The nature of the combat was so visceral and personal in nature that it seems like it would be perfect for movies/TV. Instead we appear to need to cover every imaginable element of American involvement in WWII.

Up next: Gay, Sometimes: The Story of the United States Merchant Marine

The literature and poetry written about ww1 was far superior to anything produced about ww2. I do agree that film and tv about ww1 is woeful though.

These are two good books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-Bye_to_All_That

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_an_Infantry_Officer

A more modern novel about Sassoon and Graves is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(novel)

I think the first two books are still in print, but if not 2nd hand paperbacks shouldn't be that expensive.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2010 21:10

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Bagheera posted:

An interesting sidenote is that there is a world of difference between opposing slavery and supporting racial equality. When we debate whether such-and-such Civil War hero supported or opposed slavery, it's important to understand that ideas of race were completely different then than they are now.

An apologist for slavery and racism.

The most interesting thing about the civil war in america for me is the hope the south had of enlisting the UK into their war by the lack of cotton heading towards liverpool.

Lancashire, where all the cotton mills were was a stronghold of methodism. All people were seen as equal under God and the mill workers and owners were quite happy without cotton picked by slaves.

Not to mention the fact that egypt and the rest of the empire could send us cotton.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2010 01:58

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Throatwarbler posted:

Britons really don't have any reason to be smug about their stance on slavery, because it wasn't because the average 19th Century Briton was any more enlightened than his American counterpart, but because the circumstances were very different. There wasn't a massive population of African slaves in Britain, slavery for Britain meant slavery on the plantations of their Caribbean colonies. Whether these slaves were free or not meant nothing to the average Briton living in Britain, they had no particular reason to defend it. The plantation colonies were composed of a large majority of slaves with a very small plantation owner class. These would have been for the abolition of slavery in any case once they realized it was easier to pay people to work rather than whip them. After the slaves were freed and became small farmers and whatnot, the plantation owner class still owned everything and ruled, or in the worst case, they just went back to their estates in Britain.

In the American south, freeing the slaves would have meant (and did mean) major social upheaval, to say the least. Millions of former slaves had to somehow live in peace with their former owners. This is a process that in some respects is still not complete in the US even today. For example, Brazil, another country with a somewhat similar circumstances, was also very late in abolishing slavery.

People in Britain have every reason to smug about slavery, much like the rest of the civilised world. The abolition of slavery was popular social, moral and religeous movement in Britain since the early 18th century.

Freedom, if you will.

Possibly the greatest thing the british empire ever did was to ban the slave trade and have the navy to enforce the ban.

But, back in britain the working class and its children were worked to death.

Not much has changed, but british wage slaves still enjoy more rights than american wage slaves.

asbo subject fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Aug 17, 2010

# ¿ Aug 17, 2010 03:27

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Bagheera posted:

But then why did they oppose slavery? Besides human rights, the next best answer is economics. Farmhands making a dollar or two day cost more than slaves who earned a few bowls of grits every day. Though wage labor was more productive than slave labor in the industrialized north, slave labor was more economical in the unsettled west. Thus, econmic competition was a major cause of resentment against slave owners.

But surely the capital cost of buying a slave ( around $1000 ) would make the economic argument invalid. The unsettled west was hardly a major slave owning region. I don't think the economics of the american day labourer has poo poo all to do with slavery.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2010 21:08

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

How badly did the Sack of Baghdad by the Mongols set back Islamic civilization and Western civilization as a whole?

Not too much, thank god.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Aug 19, 2010 03:24

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

The most interesting thing about Gallipoli is the sheer veneration it is held in with Australians. I nearly got punched by an Australian when I suggested that more British soldiers were killed in Gallipoli than Australians.

I had to retract my statement under threat of physical violence and admit that more Australians and Kiwis did infact die in Turkey than the British. It seems to be some strange thing they are taught, and I was more than willing to agree to an a-historical fact to prevent violence on myself.

But why is it that Australians think nobody else was there and they did all the fighting and dieing?

# ¿ Aug 26, 2010 00:04

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

WebDog posted:

There was a huge surge in nationalism during the run of John Howard where he went so far as to suggest he'd claim that patch of Turkish soil as there was more Australian blood there than Turkish.

Jesus, your country really is quite stupid.

I had not quite appreciated this till now.

No offence to you mate, fair dinkum.

But the small island in a big world and living under englands shadow comment really confuses me geographically if not culturally.

asbo subject fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Aug 26, 2010

# ¿ Aug 26, 2010 01:00

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

To contribute to this thread, can anyone tell me about why the Swedes were so good at firing muskets before 1645? I was reading a book about the English Civil War and it mentioned the New Model Army adopted the Swedish method of firing muskets- the third rank stood, the second rank squatted down and the front rank kneeled.

I had it in my head that was a British army invention, probably from watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI&NR=1

awfully racist film that it is

# ¿ Aug 26, 2010 02:50

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Admiral Snackbar posted:

Instead, he made use of "Attack Columns" which were basically very large groups of men packed tightly together in order to provide some sense of security. These groups were then sent to march directly at the enemy line, thus providing a local superiority in numbers.

"They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way."

How much of the success of the Peninsular Campaign is down to this idea of line vs column? Or is not really down to tactics and instead is a result of Napoleon losing the war by invading Russia?

Obviously the inherant superiority of the English over the French when it comes to a fight has its part to play, but discounting that if Napoleon was a bit more diplomatic and left the Russians alone- would he have won?

# ¿ Dec 16, 2010 01:18

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Nenonen posted:

some european poo poo

This is what the crimean war was about.

British soldiers charging at guns because two aristocrats did not get on.

"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."

As if the UK has ever had to take advice from the French about fighting a war.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2011 12:19

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Grand Prize Winner posted:

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-Bye_to_All_That

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_an_Infantry_Officer

# ¿ Feb 14, 2011 00:51

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Baconroll posted:

The Indian Mutiny also gave us people being blown from the guns as a method of execution for mutineers.

That method of execution was in use in India before the British arrived. It was just copied by the British.

The British did do horrific things in India it is true, but for historical accuracy you can't really blame the invention of that particular horror on the British.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 21:04

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

My favourite Korean War bugger up - the inability of Americans to speak English properly leading to one of the most heroic defences since Rourkes Drift.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/14/johnezard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River

" Things are a bit sticky " refers to a sticky wicket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_wicket

# ¿ Dec 28, 2011 20:01

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

canuckanese posted:

Sounds more like the English guy hosed up by using a colloquialism to me. Obviously hindsight is 20-20 but saying something like "We're in danger here" seems more appropriate.

Its not a colloquialism, or if it is, it is an English colloquialism. Any Englishman would understand it. English is the language of Englishmen.

Therefore, if it is misunderstood by a foreigner it is in no way the fault of the Englishman.

loving bleeding obvious, innit china.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2011 20:48

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

It's not something that I've seen written about on its own, but the seriously diminished role of the cavalryman on the battlefield from the late 17th century should, logically, correspond to a decline in cavalryman quality. The Napoleonic maxim that once cavalry charged it was spent is entirely at odds with the multiple feigned charges executed at Hastings. The inability of the Napoleonic cuirassiers to charge at more than a canter and keep order is likewise at odds with the descriptions of cavalry charges from the Middle Ages by chroniclers and in sources like the Rule of the Temple. Sorry I can't be more specific at the moment, I don't have the necessary books on hand.

The success of Cromwell's Ironsides during the English Civil War has been contributed to their discipline in being able to stop and reform after charging instead of chasing after running men.

Royalist cavalry were notorious for charging and then not stopping at all.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2011 23:12

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Puukko naamassa posted:

He's referring to this reply from the previous page:

Devil's Guard tells the story of an ex-Waffen SS officer who served in the French Foreign Legion during the First Indochina War. The author supposedly interviewed the guy in Nepal, and presents his book as fact, but it's considered by historians to be about as credible as Sven Hassel's books about WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Guard

Reading some of the "reviews" in the amazon link is like reading posts on Stormfront. Its quite frightening.

My dad told me about a school trip he took to Paris in 1954. Waiting at the Gard du Nord was a large group of French Foreign Legionionares who were all speaking German. Obviously a bunch of 10 year old schoolboys would want to know why and asked teacher. Teacher ( who was an ex marine commando ) told them that large amounts of SS soldiers joined the legion after the war.

My dad, who had a keen insight into pre-internet trolling asked what would happen if he gave them a nazi salute. The teacher explained that he would probably be torn limb from limb and he would be on his own. My dad, sensibly thought best not. He described them as the hardest, meanest looking blokes he has ever seen.

So you can see where the rumours / historical innacuracies come from.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2012 23:45

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Hey guys, have you heard about that bear? In WWII a Polish emigr� brigade had a bear called Wojtek and he carried ammunition for them

Seriously, though, let's talk animals in warfare. A lot of military formations have used an animal as a mascot, usually a dog or other domestic animal, but occasionally something like a tiger or bear cub. Just about any other animal that found its way into the military ended up being used as a draft or a cavalry animal.

Camels, elephants, horses, donkeys, mules, and probably even dogs and alpacas have been used in a draft capacity, along with oxen. Of those, only camels, elephants, and horses saw use as battlefield critters. Why weren't the other ones used? My limited understanding is that generally they were either too slow, skittish, or small to ride, although there are those old Akkadian--I think-- carvings that feature onager-drawn battle-carts, sort of primitive chariots. Is this correct? Have I missed anything major?

Aside from that we've got examples of animals used for communication, camp guarding, and mobile larders, with the primary examples being carrier pigeons, dogs, and goats, pigs, and cows respectively. I've heard that dogs have occasionally been used to sniff out mines, too. Am I forgetting any common tasks that animals were used for?

I'm distinguishing 'common' from stuff like the firebomb-bats and pigeon-guided munitions the US developed during the war, or the bomb-dogs the russians tried.

Actually wait, from those it seems like animal based munitions are actually A Thing. Have insurgents ever tried an animal bomb?

I see no mention of cats.

This highly decorated chap woud like a word

Able Seacat Simon served with distinction and valour on board the HMS Amethyst during the Yangtze Incident. Despite severe wounds he killed scores of subversive communist rats attempting to board his ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(cat)

# ¿ May 13, 2012 17:06

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

ganglysumbia posted:

Sure thing.

They rode their bicycles through the jungle and attacked Signapore. Where the British forces promptly surrendered and spent the rest of the war in a nice cozy POW camp.

This man might disagree with you

Or these

Read a book called " The Railway Man " by Eric Lomax

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 23:15

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Sarcasm, subtlety and nuance are all OK, but I have found that lots of people are that dense. Especially colonial types from the new world.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2012 00:47

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Grand Prize Winner posted:

That's a little harsh. Let's see asbo's paintings first.

I did that all myself.

I will understand if I am judged, and the standard is hitler.

asbo subject fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jun 10, 2012

# ¿ Jun 10, 2012 03:34

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

lilljonas posted:

Ironically, the term "water cure" was coined during the Philippine-American War by American soldiers who used it liberally to interrogate and torture locals. You probably know the water cure as "waterboarding".

The other term coined during the Phillipine-American war was " The White Man's Burden ". Nearly everybody thinks this is some awful British imperialist shite, which it is, but the poem was written to advise the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

# ¿ Jun 17, 2012 22:59

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

R. Mute posted:

Oh, the Wikipedia implied otherwise. "Though aware that the enemy destroyers were attempting to draw him towards German capital ships, he gave chase."

Which makes it sound like an irresponsible move. But it's wikipedia, I guess.

Nelson posted:

No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy.

Finest traditions of the navy and all that.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 20:40

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Ron Jeremy posted:

That was pure bravado on Nelson's part. The Royal Navy had very strict classifications and captains were expected to run from a superior vessel.

They may be bigger, faster, have better guns and armour but by god no ship sailed by a foreigner is superior to a Royal Navy ship.

You, Sir, deserve a horse whipping!

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 21:16

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Farecoal posted:

The British were the first to use what eventually become "standard gauge". Other countries imported British locomotives during the early years of railways, the United States included, not to mention that it was much more efficient for the all the railroad companies to use the same gauge, so it became, well, standard.

Ask me about the history of rail transport guys!!

Who inventented the steam train? Was it the Americans?

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 22:15

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

serbia invented trains

Aren't magnets enough without nicking trains?

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 23:58

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Ambulocetus posted:

I thought the British were however building quite a lot of ships in Canada (or at least acquiring timber from there), so how was the situation actually different?

Canadians can't build poo poo.

If it weren't for the french canadians being shitter you would all be speaking German.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2012 02:21

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

That war is like talking about third division football, with britains C team just making up the numbers.

The two premier league teams were having a proper war in europe.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2012 03:06

asbo subject: Jan 22, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

SeanBeansShako posted:

I guess a shared love of the monarch and general hatred for whatever government that takes funds away from them keeps them together like some sort of dysfunctional family.

I think its great that Englands most famous regicide was responsible for the formation of the British Army. Every time you see the Royal Horse Guards fannying around in front of buckingham palace- just remember Oliver Cromwell created that unit.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2012 19:58