|
Cessna posted:You know what? I was wrong. So hey, semi-related question, but what exactly makes for a fast march compared to a slow one? I.E., if one officer marches faster than five miles in ten days, what are they doing differently? What's the poo poo officer doing that he shouldn't? What's the efficient officer doing right? What, in fact, are the logistics of logistics?
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Tomn posted:So hey, semi-related question, but what exactly makes for a fast march compared to a slow one? I.E., if one officer marches faster than five miles in ten days, what are they doing differently? What's the poo poo officer doing that he shouldn't? What's the efficient officer doing right? What, in fact, are the logistics of logistics? In this case, the British were slowed considerably by a wagon and artillery train that was accompanying the column that got annihilated at Isandlwana. I agree with Cessna-- the British reliance on this train severely hampered their movement and they were reliant on wagon support to carry ammunition and food supplies as it was not possible for an infantryman to carry all the ammunition he might need for a battle on his person in addition to food, his rifle and so on. The Zulus were not slowed in this way and thus had a significant advantage in mobility over the British. Plus, pushing men clad in scarlet wool tunics and dark blue wool trousers to march great distances in hellish heat does not do positive things for morale or health. If you don't have that wagon train, and you don't have to worry about heat stroke, you can cover greater distances faster. Fearless fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jun 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So hey, semi-related question, but what exactly makes for a fast march compared to a slow one? I.E., if one officer marches faster than five miles in ten days, what are they doing differently? What's the poo poo officer doing that he shouldn't? What's the efficient officer doing right? What, in fact, are the logistics of logistics? Perhaps stopping for tea was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
I get the feeling there is some information we don't have here. It doesn't take ten days to march five miles, but it might take ten days to march five miles if you're waiting for the CO to return from the nearest town for nine days, or if the supplies haven't arrived yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah context is good. I for one am not familiar at all with what the British or the Zulu were doing. And if we're talking about comparing armies, how does one fairly compare two forces where the difference in technology is so vast?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I get the impression when Fraser first started writing in the 60s he was pretty cynical and leftwing(ish) about the Empire. As time went on, he got older and the UK moved away from nostalgia for the empire he moved towards it - and Quartered Safe is from the 90s. Boomeritis but a generation earlier basically. George MacDonald Fraser posted:The selective distortions of history, so beloved by New Labour, denigrating Britain's past with such propaganda as hopelessly unbalanced accounts of the slave trade, laying all the blame on the white races, but carefully censoring the truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and that the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy virtually single-handed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Yeah context is good. I for one am not familiar at all with what the British or the Zulu were doing. In as tl;dr a terms as I can - and these are gross oversimplifications - the British wanted to own South Africa. After some diplomatic incidents with the Zulus the British Commissioner presented them with an ultimatum that would have de facto ended Zulu independence. The Zulus refused, so the British invaded in January 1879. The British army - andl, again, this is very tl;dr - intended to walk into Zulu territory and scare the Zulus into coming to terms by their mere presence. (This is the 5 mile/10 day advance we're talking about.) They divided their force into three columns and advanced on Ulundi, the Zulu capital. The Zulus attacked the central column and annihilated them at Isandlwana. (A small British force at nearby Rorke's Drift was warned of the battle and managed to fortify and hold off a side-swipe by another Zulu force. This was given disproportionate attention by the British press to take away attention from the defeat at Isandlwana.) In response the British sent in reenforcements. They lost a battle at Hlobane, but then won at Khambula and Gingindlovu. After these victories they took the Zulu capital at Ulundi in July and captured their king in August. Count Roland posted:And if we're talking about comparing armies, how does one fairly compare two forces where the difference in technology is so vast? I will admit up front that such a comparison is fraught with peril, but will continue to maintain that there are other metrics available beyond "who won the war." Cessna fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:That's s great way of doing things if you want to declare the side with the MG-42 the winner. I believe Lindybeige's argument was that the Bren was superior to the MG-42, using the metric of "well the Allies won the war"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
I'm not sure I see the value in trying to slap a label of "best" or "better" or anything else on either army.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
The Zulu were morally better
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
The Brits had a pretty drat good logistics, considering that they were operating 8000 miles from home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
Every so often, Quora provides a brilliant answer to an incredibly stupid question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
That was a fun read, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Its still important to know how to handle, just in case. We're talking knowing how the sights work, what kind of ammunition it uses, how to read "Fire" and "Safe" in a foreign language. There's a lot of universal details that are similar among firearm designs, yes, but if you're making a video on something, you might as well cover the essentials while rolling tape. Oh yeah absolutely, I always figured that people who made weapons had a very universal way of putting the fire/safety thing but that is obviously just wishful thinking on my part  Wingnut Ninja posted:It's probably something that anyone familiar with guns could figure out, but you may not have the chance for a lot of experimentation if you find yourself in that situation, so having some training on it beforehand can't hurt. Especially for things like safeties, which a) can vary widely between different manufacturers, and b) may not be apparent if they've been correctly disengaged until you actually pull the trigger. Certainly, I never really gave it much thought that having a baseline knowledge on just how the weapon is constructed which, in hindsight, is obviously a major issue even if you're just going to pick it up and start shooting. Gnoman posted:Pretty much any small arm of WWII is something that anybody could figure out given a little time to practice. Relying on having that time to practice is not the greatest of ideas. Very valid points! Thanks for clearing it out for me, much appreciated 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
Did they also get training on allied equipment? I'm sure there were situations where a GI might end up with a looted Bren gun or so on. Also the canadians and their massive hardon for stripping lend-lease vehicles of .50 cals and using them everywhere else. e: canadian WW2 fun fact: Régiment de la Chaudière was the one canadian francophone unit to land on D-Day, and it turned out their broke rear end québécois dialect was similar enough to the local norman that briefly, people assumed them to be free french locals in british gear. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_R%C3%A9giment_de_la_Chaudi%C3%A8re Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Abongination posted:On Burma - From a page back, but an incredible book in this vein is "The Jungle Is Neutral" by Freddie Spencer Chapman. He and a couple other Brits were sent behind enemy lines in Malaysia to do special forces stuff when the Japanese invaded, then once Singapore fell they had to spend the next few years surviving in the jungle as guerillas with native supporters. Incredible survival story and very British writing - the understatement and stiff upper lip is almost comical at times. There's an old Let's Read thread of it in the forums somewhere, but years ago so maybe gone by now. I give it an 11/10 recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:From a page back, but an incredible book in this vein is "The Jungle Is Neutral" by Freddie Spencer Chapman. He and a couple other Brits were sent behind enemy lines in Malaysia to do special forces stuff when the Japanese invaded, then once Singapore fell they had to spend the next few years surviving in the jungle as guerillas with native supporters. Incredible survival story and very British writing - the understatement and stiff upper lip is almost comical at times. There's an old Let's Read thread of it in the forums somewhere, but years ago so maybe gone by now. I give it an 11/10 recommendation. Seconding this book. I'm pretty sure the Let's Read was in TFR but I'll be damned if I can find it in the archives. It's in there somewhere, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Oh yeah absolutely, I always figured that people who made weapons had a very universal way of putting the fire/safety thing but that is obviously just wishful thinking on my part the real question is, what skill or knowledge teachable in like half a day during training do you think those soldiers would have been better served by, and why? or do you think that the marginal utility value of churning troops out that much incrementally faster would make up for the casualties and difficulties they would face without that knowledge? same question applies to literally everything on the curriculum, and i'm generally given to trust that if there's an OWI filmstrip for it, it was probably worth knowing to somebody index of film bulletins they put out; many of the more 'exciting' ones are on youtube but gently caress if i wouldn't love to see the two-parter for quartermasters on how to set up a laundry, or the 6-parter on military roads  HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
If you got time to gently caress around with captured rifles you got time to get your nasty uniform cleaned and shaved. Also go dig a hole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:the real question is, what skill or knowledge teachable in like half a day during training do you think those soldiers would have been better served by, and why? or do you think that the marginal utility value of churning troops out that much incrementally faster would make up for the casualties and difficulties they would face without that knowledge? To teach soldiers something you must first train their trainers to do so, which imho is the actual bottleneck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
quote:See that Ticonderoga in the front of the fleet? She has torpedoes. A direct impact to the sides won’t do much but if the torpedoes run deep, and explode under the battleship, it will do some damage and could penetrate the keel. That will damage or even destroy machinery. I've wondered this a lot and I've never found the answer to it: Do ASW torpedoes like the Mk46/Mk50 even have the capability to engage surface targets?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:index of film bulletins they put out; many of the more 'exciting' ones are on youtube but gently caress if i wouldn't love to see the two-parter for quartermasters on how to set up a laundry, or the 6-parter on military roads I really love the care and thought that went into these training films, it's sad they don't do that kind of stuff any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Did they also get training on allied equipment? I'm sure there were situations where a GI might end up with a looted Bren gun or so on. BROKE rear end QUEBECOIS? MON TABARNAK, T'VEUX TE BATTRES!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
This seems appropriate for this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWYqu1Il9Ps I'm a little curious if any of this manual gunnery stuff is still being taught. Maybe not bomber gunners, but do people still learn how to do anti-aircraft fire? Or has that been entirely replaced with radar-guided missiles and guns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, one of the coolest lesser-known pieces of surprisingly-advanced WWII technology was the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer Waller, who is best remembered for his 'Cinerama' 3x35mm ultra-high-def format, an antecedent to IMAX, developed this interactive gunnery simulator based essentially on the same setup. Scoring was accomplished by physically encoding the correct hit spots on each frame of film, and then each gun station was attached to a pulley system that recorded its orientation at that moment for comparison here's a more complete explanation written by Waller himself: https://www.in70mm.com/cinerama/archive/gunnery/index.htm I'd love to give this thing a try so much; lower barrier of entry than a Link trainer for sure
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I really love the care and thought that went into these training films, it's sad they don't do that kind of stuff any more. Now a days the Army just puts out a list of training requirements everyone makes a local Powerpoint class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I'm not sure I see the value in trying to slap a label of "best" or "better" or anything else on either army. Frippery? On MY dying comedy forum?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I've wondered this a lot and I've never found the answer to it: If they do, an under-keep detonation from such a small warhead might still be eminently survivable for a large target. On the other hand, if it had a mode for going after props and rudders, a surface target that ate a couple of those would be a mission kill for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
The story of the last Napoleon getting himself killed by the Zulus also is an interesting anecdote. That must've had some knock-on effects on french politics.HookedOnChthonics posted:While we're on the subject, one of the coolest lesser-known pieces of surprisingly-advanced WWII technology was the Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer Man, this thing is fuckin amazing. And all that to get a couple additional 0.0x of a fighter kill / B17 not shot down per gunner trained.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Are those shots from a computer game? It looks like a fun game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The story of the last Napoleon getting himself killed by the Zulus also is an interesting anecdote. That must've had some knock-on effects on french politics. I'm sure it's a big moral gain for the gunners so they feel more prepared for the real thing, aim improvements aside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Man, this thing is fuckin amazing. And all that to get a couple additional 0.0x of a fighter kill / B17 not shot down per gunner trained. and it's not even the most extreme scheme the USAAF funded for aerial gunnery! I think that honor definitely goes to Operation Pinball, gunnery practice using live rounds shooting directly at very, very uparmored piloted target aircraft 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
I believe the standard method of training bomber gunners was to pull them on a platform with a mock up of their gun that was actually a shotgun and then launching clay pigeons. Turns out that it was the best way to teach them how to lead a target.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I believe the standard method of training bomber gunners was to pull them on a platform with a mock up of their gun that was actually a shotgun and then launching clay pigeons. Turns out that it was the best way to teach them how to lead a target. gunnery students would shoot skeet as just one element of a larger curriculum, sure? calling it 'the standard method,' well, kinda sells the pedagogy short imo. instruction using full-size turrets shooting at air- and ground-towed targets with actual .30 or .50, to, y'know, get muscle memory for the physics of the gun you'd actually be using in combat, was a much more important component another OWI film strip (featuring ronnie raygun and burgess meredith no less!) that runs through the gunnery training program--to show the relative weight of things, about a minute of this 25-minute overview of the regime is given to skeet shooting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKdLbEQ6Dv8 here is also a pretty interesting print resource on the subject: http://thebombercommand.info/DEDICATED_BOMBER_SQUADRON/DBS_TRAINING/AerialGunnery/BL_Mag_v2-2-GunneryTrain.pdf http://thebombercommand.info/DEDICATED_BOMBER_SQUADRON/DBS_TRAINING/AerialGunnery/BL_Mag_v2-2-GunneryTrain.pdf posted:Training methods were in a constant state of flux throughout the war, and many varieties of ground ranges were used at each of the schools at different times. The students might start out shooting .22 rifles at targets on a conveyor belt, much like a carnival attraction. To introduce students to machine gun firing, some schools rigged small machine guns with high pressure air hoses to fire BBs. Then they graduated to shotguns on the skeet range. Shooting at the clay targets flung from various angles and heights were a good introduction to the tracking and leading a moving target. Firing shotguns all day left their arms feeling battered from the shoulder to the elbow. A 93rd Bomb Group gunner remembers, “We learned to shoot right-handed, left-handed and any other way imaginable. I had both shoulders stuffed with towels, they were so sore and black and blue.” HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I've wondered this a lot and I've never found the answer to it: Anyone who actually knows is rightly going to keep their mouth shut. That said, it would be a hell of a design oversight if all a submerged target had to do to evade a torpedo was to surface.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also the canadians and their massive hardon for stripping lend-lease vehicles of .50 cals and using them everywhere else. Everyone enjoyed attaching M2s everywhere they could plausibly fit. Still do in fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Anyone who actually knows is rightly going to keep their mouth shut. That said, it would be a hell of a design oversight if all a submerged target had to do to evade a torpedo was to surface. Yeah, it really seems like that would be a suuuuper basic thing to cover. Like a really basic oversight, especially seeing as torpedoes are historically the way for smaller vessels to meaningfully engage larger ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Yeah, it really seems like that would be a suuuuper basic thing to cover. Like a really basic oversight, especially seeing as torpedoes are historically the way for smaller vessels to meaningfully engage larger ones. Those smaller vessels using torpedoes to engage surface vessels were using big torpedoes, not torpedoes designed to kill submarines where the water pressure will do most of the work and hence only carry a dinky little 40-kg warhead. The torpedoes carried by WWII PT boats carried warheads 4-5 times as large and modern ASW torps. Sonarwise, trying to track a surface target with active sonar is very different than trying to track a submerged target, since by definition there’s a big impedance mismatch that results in reflection, so it’s definitely not a given that you’d design what is an antisubmarine weapon with the capability to engage surface target, pick it out from the waves, etc. Any situation where you’d be engaging a surface target with a Mk46 is pretty contrived. And anyone trying to kill a submarine that manages to drive it to the surface is going to be pretty happy with that state of affairs so surfacing as means of defeating a Mk46 or a Stingray is not going to be a winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:
The Red Army did this too, the problem was that on early Shermans the .50 cal was mounted directly above the commander's hatch (on some models the only turret hatch) and got in the way of observation and evacuation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Anyone who actually knows is rightly going to keep their mouth shut. Then again, recorded forums history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 06:40
|
|
