|
Don Gato posted:Closer to Mike Nobleman, but yeah that is his name. Technically it's actually Miguel Gregorio Antonio Ignacio Hidalgo-Costilla y Gallaga Mandarte Villaseņor, but outside of the most formal circumstances you'd just say his name was Don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Hey HEY GAL this has been posted like a million times and I forgot what your opinion on it was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=625iTKITRoA The shot is also too close together, and that's more vital because they need room to swing their pieces around while they're loading as well as because each of them is a fire hazard to the others. Not sure what Alatriste's rank is. If he's a lower officer, he's not doing his job. A number of cool real details are not shown, such as the part where the two tercios on the field formed a single massive hollow square to get fired on, and the entire end of the battle, when the Spanish surrendered on very good terms. There were more of them left at the end, too. Come hang out with me during the summers and you won't have to just tabletop it.  Magni posted:Yeah, for 1-on-1 it's the shorter polearms- and preferrably multifunctional ones like a poleaxe or halberd - that reign supreme. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
I'm guessing the formations would have generally been tighter in the 16th century when they were almost all pike?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I'm guessing the formations would have generally been tighter in the 16th century when they were almost all pike?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What about zweihanders and such? What about them? They were used, they worked. I will restate that barring George Silver, no fencing material we have indicates that there was a perceived hierarchy of weapons quote:I was also under impresion that poor people never got real proper swords. Short stubby bits out of lovely metal at best, and most would have spears and shields (before armor made shields obsolete, which is still a bit of a mindfuck for me). who are these poor people, in your mind? Are they common soldiers? Because they certainly had swords (because they were professional or semi-professional) that were not just "short stubby bits out of lovely metal". Even peasants could have good swords. The Dresden Cathedral's dance of death shows a farmer with a sizable grossemesser. Armor did not make shields obsolete. They persisted through the 16th century (Alonso de Contreras was a paje de rodela) until finally dying out because guns had become so much better and the socket bayonet ended the pike block. HEY GAL posted:No idea. Rodrigo Diaz and I have discussed this and iirc neither one of us really knows. I know that the shield wall at Hastings is meant to have been so dense that dead men could not fall to the ground, but that is 450 years before the pike blocks in question. The closest thing I have come across is this image from Altdorfer, which although it is supposed to show Alexander's phalangites and hypastpists, shows Landsknechts and rodeleros operating quite close together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The Dresden Cathedral's dance of death shows a farmer with a sizable grossemesser.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I don't think Lutherans have cathedrals. They do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Was this because it was assumed that you should know what you're doing if you're manning the .50? It was mostly just a case of the Army going  as far as I can tell. They at times had projects to replace the Ma Deuce wholesale with a newer HMG design, but those all ended up with their budget slashed before they got anywhere.quote:Didn't the Bundeswehr use what was basically an MG42 rechambered for NATO 7.62 for loving ages, too? The MG3 is still going strong as a coax and commanders weapon on most Bundeswehr AFVs and as the normal squad machineguns in some infantry units even after others switched to the MG4 (a 5.56mm SAW similar to the M249 in most regards; the Bundeswehr didn't actually use a SAW-style LMG for their regular infantry before and just went with one MG3 in every squad). Might be replaced by the HK 121, but even then there'd be still like 30 other countries using it as their primary MMG. Magni fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Wasn't the MG42's cycle rate considered wasteful for its role as an infantry support weapon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
I have a question about tube feeding magazines and how you can't have pointed, centerfire cartridges in them. Theoretically could you just have a rimfire pointed cartridge with the same ballistics as an equivalent centerfire cartridge without the chainfire issue? Historically rimfire cartridges existed alongside centerfire when lever action tube fed rifles were being fielded by various armed forces of the time? How come this isn't a thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Here's the Dresdner Totentanz that Rodrigo Diaz was talking about. It's fragmentary, of course, but you can still see the peasant behind the Landsknecht. Exhibition courtesy of the RAF; a blow took off both their heads. Click on the little grey numbers for huge. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
If the USA and Poland both were involved in some sort of video game style competition with what military assets they possessed in 1939 but with equal amount of territory and bordering one another in 1939, who would win?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Eustachy posted:If the USA and Poland both were involved in some sort of video game style competition with what military assets they possessed in 1939 but with equal amount of territory and bordering one another in 1939, who would win? Poland. The United States was woefully underarmed and underprepared for major war prior to 1942 (and even then, the US Army was very much a work in progress). In 1939, the US Army had about 400,0000 soldiers (200,000 Regular Army soldiers and 200,000 National Guardsmen). Poland had a million-man army. Now, the USAAC had more aircraft than the Poles (about 2500 aircraft compared to the Poles' 400 aircraft). However, many aircraft on both sides were obsolete types like the P-26 Peashooter. Furthermore, its unclear how effectively the light and medium aircraft of the 1939 USAAC would could have exploited any air superiority it won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Wasn't the MG42's cycle rate considered wasteful for its role as an infantry support weapon? Not particular, though they did redesign the bolt for the MG3 so it owouldn't increase the rate of fire as it heated up - the MG3 is capped at 1200 rpm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
So how did the peasants get their arms? I get the impression that in middle ages, lords would call up their levies and they'd have to serve about 40 days or so, because fields don't plow themselves. Where would a peasant soldier like that get arms and armor? Or am I mixing up a lot of stuff from wildly different ages and locations? Just... just don't bash my head in, will ya? Also, going by stuff that Baccaruda re-posted, infiltration tactics mean sending some guys forth to disable minefields and barbed wire all sneaky like, then going with the offense? Or is it just getting close before springing the assault?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Some of those parts might have been used to kill Russians for over 120 years. Mosin-Nagant was a Russian military rifle and its debut was in the Russo-Japanese war (110 years ago) and WW1 (100 years ago). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Mosin-Nagant was a Russian military rifle and its debut was in the Russo-Japanese war (110 years ago) and WW1 (100 years ago). Well, I know it's a Russian rifle, it's just they wrote that some parts might have been around since 1890s.  Of course, I won't argue that some enterprising Finnish person might have gotten his hands on an early prototype, shot a Russian and passed it down to future generations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
JcDent posted:some enterprising Finnish person Aren't all Finns enterprising?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I know that the shield wall at Hastings is meant to have been so dense that dead men could not fall to the ground, but that is 450 years before the pike blocks in question. quote:The closest thing I have come across is this image from Altdorfer, which although it is supposed to show Alexander's phalangites and hypastpists, shows Landsknechts and rodeleros operating quite close together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Some of those parts might have been used to kill Russians for over 120 years. Eh, some Finnish nationalists volunteers fought against Reds in the Russian Civil War, and Finland was in war against Soviet Union for about 3.5 years altogether. Finland hasn't been in any Hundred Years War. In fact, Finland has been in peace for 69 years, and hasn't been enjoying peace for this long ever in its recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Magni posted:Not particular, though they did redesign the bolt for the MG3 so it owouldn't increase the rate of fire as it heated up - the MG3 is capped at 1200 rpm. I heard about the overheating problems so I assumed it was the rate of fire that was doing it. I guess trained machine gunners don't just hold down the trigger and pray. JcDent posted:Also, going by stuff that Baccaruda re-posted, infiltration tactics mean sending some guys forth to disable minefields and barbed wire all sneaky like, then going with the offense? Or is it just getting close before springing the assault? The Chinese Red army was well-equipped with small-arms, but short on crew and materiel for stuff like artillery, aircraft, trucks, and so on. The UN forces, and the Americans in particular, have so much crap in general, but in particular had a ton of artillery in the form of long-range batteries and organic mortar detachments on the frontlines. The Chinese noted that American mortar teams were quick to aim in and pulverize any congregation of men in plain sight. If that wasn't enough, the big guns weren't much slower to zero in. This is unchanged from WWII basically, American fire support was totally ballistic compared to the Germans or Soviets. But the Chinese Red Army had fought the Japanese for a decade, and the Nationalists for even longer. They pretty much expected to be outgunned in this fashion from the get-go. Never to the same extent, but it didn't change the concept. The best way to neutralize that sort of advantage is to avoid getting noticed, and if you do, be too close to UN positions to be bombarded. Infiltration was all about starting a fight from the closest range possible. So, it's not an either/or thing. Infiltration sometimes involved more sophisticated tactics like mine-clearing and wirecutting and sometimes it meant tossing a million grenades at an strongpoint while the main column quickly bypasses it. It could just mean skipping by a blind spot that some clever scouts detected. The desired result is that nobody notices the attack coming until it's too late. A Chinese man throwing 3 grenades into your trench being too late. So obviously, infiltration works best at night. The Chinese didn't have any night vision equipment better than the UN forces, so miscommunications meant that Chinese units could get destroyed by a secondary position... and the next unit would wander into the same ambush spot. And eventually the UN forces wise up too. They start bunching up at night into positions with 360 degree coverage. Just the same as any tactic, it had its weaknesses. But it was the better option for the Red Army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Remember the discussion earlier about polearms, swords, and the concept of 'reach'. Infiltration tactics are what you adopt if you as an army have far less firepower than the army you are attacking. You can't suppress the enemy with direct or indirect fires in order to 'close the gap' because they'll win that fight, so you have to use the cover of darkness and stealth to get your assault teams as close in to the enemy positions as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Until a few months ago I would have said that the pikemen are too close together, but in fact depending on what the formation is like they do have the tendency to bunch. Whatever the case, they are too close together when they're in formation (the standard is three feet front to back and side to side, stick your left arm out straight and touch your neighbor's shoulder). During the fight they're too close together if the shot is supposed to walk through their Gassen, which I think they might be. I figured that they probably are too close together, but that's what you see in every war movie from every era. You can't really get a good "ww2 infantry fighting" shot when everyone's at least meters from one another. As far as I remember, Alatriste was just a rank-and-file soldier who got nicknamed "Captain" after he once took charge of a company after the officers died. Personally, I think the attack of the French horse looks kind of off, but that's probably a budget issue: training people and horses to ride closer to the pikes while shooting off their pistols costs money. I'd love to see proper re-enacting sometime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And they have shields, it would make sense for them to be close together to protect one another. The way that he uses contemporary equipment for the representation is very interesting though. How he depicts the longbowmen on the side of the pike formation, the way that their bows bend, it's the real thing. You can look at the "Persians" in the following pics and see that the painter must have seen the details in person somewhere. The way that he paints turkish cavalry shields, or that the archers use a thumblock and where they anchor. There's some pretty good observation from the artist here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I love their sense of history. It's so naively beautiful. So out of curiosity, when exactly did Medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern Europeans stop thinking of people in the past as being "Exactly like us, down to the clothes they wear"? And why did that start happening? More archeological discoveries? Or did artists like that one KNOW that history wasn't the way it was now, they just wanted to depict a scene that contemporary viewers would recognize and understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I heard about the overheating problems so I assumed it was the rate of fire that was doing it. I guess trained machine gunners don't just hold down the trigger and pray. The thing with the old MG-42 was that once the bolt started heating up, it actually caused the rate of fire to increase - a gunner going hog wild with a big box of ammo could drum the thing up to 1500+ rpm. The MG3s bolt was redesigned to not do that. And while overheating is still a issue with the weapon, it's not that big one -it comes standard issue with replacement barrels and heat-resistant gloves and the original design already incorporated quick barrel change as a feature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
100.273972602739726 Years Ago Yesterday and today's another hell of a one-two punch down in Serbia. The Allies are following closely, and have noted what kind of successes you can apparently achieve once you entirely dislodge an enemy from his positions and then keep pursuing hard before they can dig in again somewhere else. The Russians are about to give up Lodz; if they can't attack Silesia (impossible in the near future, with the weight of German forces opposite them) it's not a good enough position to justify being in a salient, so they'll retire and shorten their line in front of Warsaw. In Africa yesterday Herbert Dennis Cutler crashed his flying boat while going off to find Konigsberg again. For you, Herbie, zee var iss over! They've attacked Qurna again, but still have a bloody big river to cross (vicious latrine rumours suggest that the official maps have seriously under-estimated its width). The French Operations Bureau is now once again convinced that a dual attack in Artois and Champagne would be a good idea; and Louis Barthas is slightly less optimistic as he watches a trench repeatedly change hands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Mosin-Nagant was a Russian military rifle and its debut was in the Russo-Japanese war (110 years ago) and WW1 (100 years ago). I'm sure some Cossack somewhere in the service of the Tsar used one to kill a Russian peasant at some point in the early years of the rifle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Louis Barthas is slightly less optimistic as he watches a trench repeatedly change hands. This Barthas fellow has insufficient elan; no wonder why the attacks petered out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone has ever made a French scale for elan. Would the pointless cavalry charges at Waterloo be at the top?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I wonder if anyone has ever made a French scale for elan. Would the pointless cavalry charges at Waterloo be at the top? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
So what, three or four Verdun and two Sacred Roads? maybe half a Napoleon?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So out of curiosity, when exactly did Medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern Europeans stop thinking of people in the past as being "Exactly like us, down to the clothes they wear"? And why did that start happening? More archeological discoveries? Or did artists like that one KNOW that history wasn't the way it was now, they just wanted to depict a scene that contemporary viewers would recognize and understand? You deserve an answer, but I'm not sure if I can give you one. Think of the story that the artist wants to convey. (Good) Paintings that are meant for public space need to utilize a visual language that is understood by the audience, hence an artist needs to access certain familiar topoi to get a point across. Every figure or pose in such a painting is laden with meaning and symbolism. Suppose the painter knew how people dressed, how they armored themselves, etc., would his audience understand his visual language if he filled his compostion with completely strange things or situations? Stories from the bible work well, or stuff that everybody in the audience experiences in day to day life. How would you paint a strange enemy from the east, so that everybody understood what was meant? Or suppose you want to paint somebody in such a way that he appears as a statesman, how would you do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Wasn't the MG42's cycle rate considered wasteful for its role as an infantry support weapon? The very nature of how an MG is used means that the RoF is more of a possible than a utilized thing. First off you're not going to have enough ammo to get anywhere close to that effective RoF. You might burn off all 50/100/200/250/whatever rounds, but then you've got to reload the thing before you can shoot anymore. And maybe change the barrel too if you fired enough rounds because without either active water cooling or the rush of wind past your barrel as you fly about it's going to get dangerously hot. Even further there isn't really anything worth shooting at with that many rounds at once. Machine Guns are suppression weapons first and foremost, especially these days. You're not going to have a wave of guys charging at you to mow down, they're going to be dispersed and, unless they're really stupid, not standing up fully. Quick little bursts will keep them down and limit their movement. You might (and probably will) hit at least one of them, but that's really not the primary goal. It's because of considerations like this that most of the modern LMGs have cyclic rates in the 800-1000 RPM range. The MG3 is a noteworthy exception to this. (The 121 has a lower cyclic rate)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:As far as I remember, Alatriste was just a rank-and-file soldier who got nicknamed "Captain" after he once took charge of a company after the officers died.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
What were troop transports like in the age of sail? Did they just put a bunch of fuckers on frigates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You deserve an answer, but I'm not sure if I can give you one. Think of the story that the artist wants to convey. (Good) Paintings that are meant for public space need to utilize a visual language that is understood by the audience, hence an artist needs to access certain familiar topoi to get a point across. Every figure or pose in such a painting is laden with meaning and symbolism. Suppose the painter knew how people dressed, how they armored themselves, etc., would his audience understand his visual language if he filled his compostion with completely strange things or situations? Well, in that case, to try and narrow things down a bit - when did artists begin to depict historical scenes as something other than contemporary scenes, and do we have any idea what was behind the change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So out of curiosity, when exactly did Medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern Europeans stop thinking of people in the past as being "Exactly like us, down to the clothes they wear"? And why did that start happening? More archeological discoveries? Or did artists like that one KNOW that history wasn't the way it was now, they just wanted to depict a scene that contemporary viewers would recognize and understand? I can't give a proper answer either (which is embarrassing, 'cause I've taken a billion art history classes, I'm sure this came up at some point) but it's worth mentioning- and JaucheCharly pointed this out in regards to the piece depicting Alexander- they usually didn't actually depict historical/biblical accounts identically to themselves. They just didn't have a clear picture in the way we do of what those people actually looked like. The differences that we often can't even pick out would to them still set the people in these pieces apart as exotic and different. and supporting that without me actually looking anything up, art started grounding its self in history more towards the end of the enlightenment, i.e. when archaeology became an actual thing, and also when goods from ancient and far off lands started getting paraded around in European cities to the point that artists could actually look at them. JaucheCharly posted:Think of the story that the artist wants to convey. (Good) Paintings that are meant for public space need to utilize a visual language that is understood by the audience, hence an artist needs to access certain familiar topoi to get a point across. Every figure or pose in such a painting is laden with meaning and symbolism. Suppose the painter knew how people dressed, how they armored themselves, etc., would his audience understand his visual language if he filled his compostion with completely strange things or situations? This might sometimes be true, particularly in Medieval rather than Renaissance art, but I don't think it would be the norm. Keep in mind, art is one of the main ways visual language is pushed forward. Even if an audience couldn't understand what something was depicting at first, it would become familiar with it over time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What were troop transports like in the age of sail? Did they just put a bunch of fuckers on frigates? Merhcantmen could be easily used for troop transport purposes. Just stuff the hull full of seasick infantry and you're good. They'd also removed/stow the guns on warships and use them as troops transports if push came to shove. e: "fuckers on frigates" should be GiP's new name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'd love to see proper re-enacting sometime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 21:07
|
|