Ask me about Military History!

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

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Mans posted:

While massacres occurred during that time, the idea of genocide against entire peoples was something strictly Roman. And the fall of a decaying state isn't a tragedy, it's the opportunity for something better to develop, which ended up happening, even if it took sometime to materialize. And what was the reason for the collapse of literacy and trade if not because of Roman instability and insecurity? Something that can't be put entirely to blame in the foreign tribes that entered the empire.

The invasions helped the Roman Empire to fall, and this is quite honestly something good. It was a dying state, it would most likely fall under it's own weight sooner or later. Why it's a tragedy that a collapsing empire fell when outside sources were smart enough to kick them while they where down is simply silly. That's like saying that Philip II of Macedon was a monster when he dominated the weakened Greek States in the south, or how horrible Alexander was for taking advantage of the Persian's weakened state.

The Romans grew by smartly taking their chances and taking advantage of moments of weakness by their neighbors, to say that it's a tragedy when someone else did it to them doesn't make any sense.

This is double speaky to me. The Romans were bad and genocidal (sort of) but their collapse was an opportunity. It cuts both ways.

I'm not saying that the barbarian's were EEEEEVIL or anything. They were doing what they did, moving around trying to survive or hunting for glory or getting by, and I think the whole movement of the peoples in that time is fascinating. I wish they'd been more literate so we could hear there side of the story.

Still, for the people who'd been isolated from the worst of the wars, who'd enjoyed Pax Romana and the roads and aqueducts, yeah, the collapse had its downsides, regardless of who to 'blame for it.' Maybe a more centralized state could've dealt with the Vikings better, maybe Italy wouldn't be such a freaking mess, maybe, well, whatever. I don't really see the point in moralizing something like the collapse of the Empire, it was simply to big and multifaceted for anyone to have been responsible for it, much less applying some sort of moral judgement.

Actually, I'd love to learn more about the integration of German into Europe as a whole. It went from this dark land the ate Legions and poo poo invading hordes who had a penchant for ending up in Spain or North Africa to being full of these big ole' cities, home to a Baltic trade league and a multitude of princedoms of varying levels of pettiness.

# ? Nov 6, 2011 19:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 20:02

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

Jiriam posted:

My father was a regular army and then national guard officer in the sixties and seventies, and when he died I inherited boxes and boxes of guerilla warfare manuals and books of tactical problems that talk about 'the enemy' -but you can tell it's the soviets- in really dehumanizing terms. It's weird, and frightening to me.

That's interesting. My great-grandfather had a Soviet WWII guerilla warfare manual, which didn't dehumanize the enemy at all. Most of it was on weapons maintenance, hand to hand combat, how to take out a tank with no anti-tank weapons and how to survive in the Russian wilderness. There were parts on interrogation, but all they consisted of were phrases you may want to ask, such as where the base is located, how many tanks they have, etc. It was all about how to defeat the enemy, not convincing the reader that the enemy needs to be defeated.

# ? Nov 6, 2011 19:12

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Well, the Suebi and Saline Franks where very in touch with the Roman world before entering it, Alaric was educated in Constantinople and Theodoric was pretty much a satellite of the same city. The only major players who i assume had zero to no Roman contact where the Vandals and the Burgundians, who came from Scandinavia.

# ? Nov 6, 2011 19:23

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

Ensign Expendable posted:

That's interesting. My great-grandfather had a Soviet WWII guerilla warfare manual, which didn't dehumanize the enemy at all [...] It was all about how to defeat the enemy, not convincing the reader that the enemy needs to be defeated.

If it was written actually during World War 2, then that was presumably because its readership had all the evidence they needed of that thanks to their own eyes...

# ? Nov 6, 2011 23:28

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

I think there could be a difference between 'dehumanize' and 'demonize' that is being missed here. When military manuals dehumanize the enemy, they treat them as a technical problem that needs to be eliminated as efficiently as possible. When they demonize them, they beg for you to cause as much human suffering to them as possible.

Military manuals never try to humanize the enemy, by the way. It's not part of the training.

# ? Nov 6, 2011 23:35

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Mans posted:

Luanda was as Portuguese as Lisbon in Salazar's eyes. The idea was that by treating the natives as Portuguese people, these would embrace Portugal as their land. There were no Angolans, Cabo Verdians, nothing, only Portuguese. The truth was that this was nothing more than pretty words.

The Portuguese did pay lip service to the idea that Angola and Mozambique were as Portuguese as Portugal itself was. There was a process where an African could gain the full rights of a Portuguese citizen similar to what the Belgians did in the Congo and the French did in North and West Africa. Essentially, you had to remove all aspects of yourself that made you African and totally embrace a European identity(Perfect Portuguese, Catholic, adopt European customs and dress). Very few Africans, relative to the total colonial populations, ever achieved the status of Assimilado(or Evolue in French colonies. I think Belgians used the same term).

Africa from 1945 to present day is one of the most illogical, senseless and depressing but interesting places/times in my opinion.

# ? Nov 7, 2011 00:42

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

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

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Nenonen posted:

Actually, I would really much enjoy reading about this kind of useless minutiae. If that is your expertise, do share. Of course, the thing is you could write hundreds of pages about it if you really get down into it. But it's really interesting how the differing naval technologies - sail vs. coal vs. fuel oil (is this a correct term for ships?) vs. nuclear have fundamentally changed every aspect of naval strategies so many times within the span of just a couple of centuries. Whereas wind is free (and by 19th century it was figured out how to prevent scurvy even on long trips), coal had to be supplied one way or another, which meant a strategic challenge for it greatly favoured great naval powers like UK that had bases all along the coasts.

It did not just change naval strategies. The coal stations and supply of coal was a giant cause of colonialism in the Indian Ocean and far Pacific. And coal based fleets were very dependent on coal quality and availability for their actions.

The most well known is the Russian Baltic fleet that went from Petersburg all the way to Japan only to get smashed at Tsushima. That story is quite amazing, truth be told. After the Japanese launched a sneak attack at the Russian fleet at Port Arthur (sound familiar?) and torpedoed the fleet out of the conflict, the Russian Baltic fleet was dispatched to go help. This fleet suffered bad luck wherever it went. First of all, in the North sea the fleet attacked some British fishing boats assuming they were Japanese. Yep, Japanese fishing boats off Denmark was their reasoning. That almost caused war with Britan, who had an alliance with Japan. Hard to believe that a few years from then they would ally. Nonetheless, any thought of the fleet refueling at British ports was out of the question. Or using the Suez Canal. So what was left?

The French Empire.

Taking the LONG way to Japan, (with world news reporting their positions, and the Brits supplying the Japanese with ship intel), the fleet went from French port to port always filling up and taking their time. In Madagascar and Indochina they overstayed their welcome and were diplomatically forced to leave after coaling and resupply. Morale was low, the coal was low quality, resulting in slower ships and more smoke from their stacks. And eventually the Japanese caught them and smashed them, supposedly by viewing the hospital ship that was fully lit according to the Geneva convention, and figuring out the position of the fleet itself.

The coal situation caused the slow fleet speed, the predictable path of the fleet around the world, and logistical nightmares throughout the colonies, not to mention the battle limitations. Pre-dreadnoughts began to spray fuel oil on their coal as a regular measure, and navies would use dual coal/fuel driven ships. It was not until 1912 that Churchill as First Lord would seek an arrangement with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later called BP) for a constant supply of high quality fuel, that the UK created a fuel only super-dreadnought, the Queen Elizabeth class.

It is interesting that right before WW1 the armies of all the nations were mostly old-guard thinkers who did not really incorporate technology in their plans and doctrine, but the navies were always at the cutting edge with new doctrines and new integrations of technology.

# ? Nov 7, 2011 04:41

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Agreed. Where else would you get General Butt Naked?

A friend of my Dad's was on the MEU that landed in Liberia in 1995ish to evacuate the embassy. I remember hearing about him when I was growing up.

# ? Nov 7, 2011 08:18

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

Mister Gopher posted:

It is interesting that right before WW1 the armies of all the nations were mostly old-guard thinkers who did not really incorporate technology in their plans and doctrine, but the navies were always at the cutting edge with new doctrines and new integrations of technology.

This is especially true, the British Army and Royal Navy suffered from Waterloo syndrome as I like to call it where they clung onto the tactics and technology of the late Napoleonic Wars until the twilight years of the 19th century. Some of the thinking sadly stayed until 1920 much to the sadness to many British volunteers families.

The Royal Navy was especially determined to keep using its sails even when the French Navy started to use steam engines and bolted on the first metal armour to their ships hulls. The Navy of course only then upgraded because blarrghbllry the French!

I think sometimes it was a miracle the Army managed to get generals like Napier.

# ? Nov 7, 2011 15:51

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

SeanBeansShako posted:

The Royal Navy was especially determined to keep using its sails even when the French Navy started to use steam engines and bolted on the first metal armour to their ships hulls. The Navy of course only then upgraded because blarrghbllry the French!

Yeah this isn't actually true at all despite what "common knowledge" says.

The Royal Navy was using steam in a big way by the 1830s but until the screw propeller came into its own the bigger warships couldn't use steam very effectively without compromising their broadside firepower. Paddlewheels were a massive weakness on a battleship.

Also reducing the philosophy behind the first ironclads was "blarrghbllry the French" is the kind of horrible Geoffrey Regan/Oh What A Lovely War nonsense that this thread should be specifically trying to dispel.

Sails were also retained because the early engines weren't particularly good and there wasn't a network of global coaling stations until the last couple decades of the 1800s. Notice that the mastless warships like Devastation were never sent much farther abroad than the Mediterranean because there was neither the infrastructure to support them or anything there they would be needed to fight anyways. Read Steam, Steel, and Shellfire and John Beeler's Birth of the Battleship for more information.

Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 9, 2011

# ? Nov 9, 2011 21:45

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Weren't the last sail vessels also especially fast when compared to the early steam vessels?

# ? Nov 9, 2011 22:07

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

I never said I was an expert, I might be just mixing things up from one of those BBC Magazines I uploaded a while back.

# ? Nov 10, 2011 00:04

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Also reducing the philosophy behind the first ironclads was "blarrghbllry the French" is the kind of horrible Geoffrey Regan/Oh What A Lovely War nonsense that this thread should be specifically trying to dispel.

Yeah, this is a navy that reacted to the French laying down an ironclad by designing and launching only a year behind HMS Warrior.

Also it's difficult to see what Napoleonic thinking survived to the 1920's.

# ? Nov 10, 2011 00:20

Retarted Pimple: Jun 2, 2002

Mans posted:

Weren't the last sail vessels also especially fast when compared to the early steam vessels?

Do you mean Clippers?

# ? Nov 10, 2011 00:22

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

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

Lovely Joe Stalin: Jun 12, 2007; Our Lovely Wang

Alchenar posted:

HMS Warrior.

She's not the prettiest ship in the world, but the engineering below decks is enchanting. Well worth a walk around if you ever get the chance.

# ? Nov 10, 2011 01:17

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Grand Prize Winner posted:

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.

Also a large amount of sail ships owned by the powers in WW1 were either captured, sunk, or retired for the new merchant crafts put out by the industrial nations during the war. Especially the UK, France and Italy. Even the neutral powers of the Netherlands, Spain and Norway quickly industrialized their remaining merchant fleets during that time.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 03:37

Konstantin: Jun 20, 2005; And the Lord said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

Keep in mind that naval services are very big on tradition, even more than other sections of the armed forces. US Navy officer candidates had to spend significant amounts of training time learning how to navigate with a sextant and star chart until 1997.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 05:58

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

Konstantin posted:

Keep in mind that naval services are very big on tradition, even more than other sections of the armed forces. US Navy officer candidates had to spend significant amounts of training time learning how to navigate with a sextant and star chart until 1997.

At least around here in Europe, those are still required skills for 1st mates and captains in the merchant navy. A friend of mine is currently studying navigation for a boat license and I think navigating like that is still part of the curriculum. It's good to know if your more modern equipment fails.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 07:45

Lovely Joe Stalin: Jun 12, 2007; Our Lovely Wang

Yeah, even with all the redundancies in the world, any decent sized boat really should be capable of celestial navigation.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 09:01

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

SeanBeansShako posted:

The Royal Navy was especially determined to keep using its sails even when the French Navy started to use steam engines and bolted on the first metal armour to their ships hulls. The Navy of course only then upgraded because blarrghbllry the French!

The Royal Navy gets a lot of crap for being reactionary and opposed to innovation. They were on the forefront of naval engineering, limited only by budgets, the success of new inventions and the whole ramming detour. The Warrior, which was linked earlier, was as fast as any sailing ship but the clippers and was an armored iron hull, not wood plated with iron like the Gloire. Sails hung around for a couple of decades, but the first line ships went to all steam fairly quickly after Warrior. The cheaper ships meant for foreign stations needed a longer endurance than the battleships in home waters.

The RN did go wildly wrong with the emphasis on ramming, but so did a lot of people. It DID get them thinking about underwater damage and lead to the RN adopting torpedoes as quickly as they did. Against a lot of opposition they were pioneers in submarine development.

Old fashioned thinkers don't create naval revolutions in succeeding generations.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 09:36

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

mllaneza posted:

The Royal Navy gets a lot of crap for being reactionary and opposed to innovation. They were on the forefront of naval engineering, limited only by budgets, the success of new inventions and the whole ramming detour. The Warrior, which was linked earlier, was as fast as any sailing ship but the clippers and was an armored iron hull, not wood plated with iron like the Gloire. Sails hung around for a couple of decades, but the first line ships went to all steam fairly quickly after Warrior. The cheaper ships meant for foreign stations needed a longer endurance than the battleships in home waters.

The RN did go wildly wrong with the emphasis on ramming, but so did a lot of people. It DID get them thinking about underwater damage and lead to the RN adopting torpedoes as quickly as they did. Against a lot of opposition they were pioneers in submarine development.

Old fashioned thinkers don't create naval revolutions in succeeding generations.

It really depends on what time period you are talking about. Certainly for most of the age of sail the Royal Navy was permanently a step behind France as a result of a dockyard system in the UK that worked on a guildlike Master and apprentice system instead of a much more professional and scientific French system.

Most innovations in the Royal Navy came from the capture of more advanced French ships. In the 18th Century it was the French who designed the 74 gun line ship, as well as the Classical frigate.

Likewise Fischer fully appreciated the value of torpedoes, but he still presided over an Admiralty which spend the largest naval budget in the world mostly on Dreadnought building.

# ? Nov 11, 2011 10:45

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about Black units in the US military in the Pacific theater (WW2)? I mean actual formations, be they land, sea or air, not some guy cleaning a ship or something. Where the Marines all-white at this point?

thanks!

# ? Nov 14, 2011 13:07

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Can't really tell that much, but the Tuskegee Airmen were probably the most famous one.

# ? Nov 14, 2011 19:34

GyverMac: Aug 3, 2006; My posting is like I Love Lucy without the funny bits. Basically, WAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I'm curious about special operations during the cold war. Is there any information about special forces missions in either the US or the Soviet Union during the cold war? I'm not thinking about spy operations or missions in satelite/third party countries, but of actual special forces combat missions on soviet or american soil.

# ? Nov 14, 2011 19:58

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling
1-800-GAMBLER; Ultra Carp

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about Black units in the US military in the Pacific theater (WW2)? I mean actual formations, be they land, sea or air, not some guy cleaning a ship or something. Where the Marines all-white at this point?

thanks!

I don't know much about the Marine Corps, but the African Americans in the Navy were prevented from serving in anything but the Mess Hall until after Pearl Harbor. The ban was lifted due to the actions of Doris Miller. During the attack, he personally attended to the ship's mortally wounded captain, and afterwards manned an AA emplacement (Something he had no prior training for) until the ship went down and he was forced to evacuate. He earned a Navy Cross for his actions (Second only to the Medal of Honor, which many thought he should have received instead) and went on to give a War Bond tour before being shipped out again, where he was killed in action.

Unfortunately, discrimination in the Navy continued for some time-apparently, by mid 1943 the Navy had 100,000 African American sailors without a single officer among them. It wasn't until 1944 that the first African American officers were commissioned. (One of these men, Samuel L. Gravely, Jr, eventually rose to become the Navy's first African American Flag Officer.)

# ? Nov 14, 2011 19:59

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Nenonen posted:

I think there could be a difference between 'dehumanize' and 'demonize' that is being missed here. When military manuals dehumanize the enemy, they treat them as a technical problem that needs to be eliminated as efficiently as possible. When they demonize them, they beg for you to cause as much human suffering to them as possible.

Military manuals never try to humanize the enemy, by the way. It's not part of the training.

Do you know of an online resource where I can see old military training manuals? I've read a couple, and they're fascinating.

# ? Nov 14, 2011 21:04

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

This one is a classic, a manual to the crew of Tiger Tanks.

# ? Nov 14, 2011 22:49

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

This page has several chapters from the Partisan's Companion, a book that was written to help Soviet citizens organize resistance against German forces. The chapters are as follows:

Rank Insignia of the German Army
Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy (brief maintenance instructions for common and uncommon weapons)
Destroy Enemy Tanks! (how to fight a tank with no anti tank weapons)
How Fascists Combat Partisans
Rules of Interrogation
How to Fight an Airborne Enemy
Life in the Snow
Hand to Hand Combat
Camouflage
Combat Arms (same thing as Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy, but for Soviet weapons)
Travel and Campground
Scouting

# ? Nov 14, 2011 23:00

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

Alchenar posted:

It really depends on what time period you are talking about. Certainly for most of the age of sail the Royal Navy was permanently a step behind France as a result of a dockyard system in the UK that worked on a guildlike Master and apprentice system instead of a much more professional and scientific French system.

Most innovations in the Royal Navy came from the capture of more advanced French ships. In the 18th Century it was the French who designed the 74 gun line ship, as well as the Classical frigate.
</quote>

I was thinking mostly the ironclad and pre-Dreadnought periods. Good Enough is a strong encouragement for conservatism in building practices.

<quote.
Likewise Fischer fully appreciated the value of torpedoes, but he still presided over an Admiralty which spend the largest naval budget in the world mostly on Dreadnought building.

I'm not sure I follow. Yes, they spend huge sums of money on the brand new, truly superior, really big warships then developed (loosely speaking, All Big Gun was going to happen). They had enough money left over to have the world's largest submarine force in 1914, as well as pioneering in naval aviation. By the end of WW1 the Grand Fleet had over 100 aircraft organic to the battleline and cruiser squadrons. A High Seas Fleet sortie late in the war would have had to deal with flocks of scouting aircraft and shot-spotting planes.

# ? Nov 14, 2011 23:14

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Ensign Expendable posted:

Destroy Enemy Tanks! (how to fight a tank with no anti tank weapons)
How to Fight an Airborne Enemy
Life in the Snow
Hand to Hand Combat

See, this is why they won the war. Russians are super-human.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 01:09

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

I've just re-read Stephen Tanner's A Military History of Afghanistan from Alexander the Great to the fall of The Taliban. It's a pretty good light read. I wish some parts were as detailed as others though, there's lots of detail about the first Anglo-Afghan war and the retreat from Kabul but barely 3 sentences about the third Anglo-Afghan war.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 01:50

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about Black units in the US military in the Pacific theater (WW2)? I mean actual formations, be they land, sea or air, not some guy cleaning a ship or something. Where the Marines all-white at this point?

thanks!

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/usmc/pcn-190-003133-00/sec7.htm

http://www.montfordpointmarines.com/Library.pdf

http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/article/world-war-ii-montford-point-marines-honoring-and-preserving-their-legacy

Information is kind of sparse. From what I've read, most Black Marines served in the 51st or 52nd Defense Battalion, independent combat service support companies or as stewards.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 06:15

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Ensign Expendable posted:

This page has several chapters from the Partisan's Companion, a book that was written to help Soviet citizens organize resistance against German forces. The chapters are as follows:

Rank Insignia of the German Army
Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy (brief maintenance instructions for common and uncommon weapons)
Destroy Enemy Tanks! (how to fight a tank with no anti tank weapons)
How Fascists Combat Partisans
Rules of Interrogation
How to Fight an Airborne Enemy
Life in the Snow
Hand to Hand Combat
Camouflage
Combat Arms (same thing as Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy, but for Soviet weapons)
Travel and Campground
Scouting

So wish this was in English :sigh:

(cool pics though, thanks for the link)

# ? Nov 15, 2011 11:41

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

I translated the most interesting chapter (the anti-tank one) in the TFR milsurp thread a while ago, if you go through my posts in there you might be able to find it.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 17:10

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

I found the translation I posted.

Ensign Expendable posted:

Here you go. The original is preserved as much as possible.

IX.Destroy tanks of the enemy!
During battle with a tank, remember:

A brave man has nothing to fear from tanks. The more bravery you meet an enemy machine with, the easier it is to destroy it. Seek out Fascist tanks and destroy them.
A tank's engine is its source of movement. Destroy the engine and the tank will stop.
The engine works on gasoline. Stop its delivery and the tank will stand still.
If the tank still has gasoline left, try to ignite it and the tank will burn.
The tank's turret spins, while the main gun moves vertically. Try to jam the turret to deny the enemy the ability to aim.
The tank's engine is cooled by taking in air from vents. All moving connections and hatches also have holes. If you pour in flammable fluid, the tank will burn.
In order to look around, there are viewing ports and instruments behind hatches. Cover the ports with mud and shoot at the hatches with any weapons to try to jam them.
In order to traverse rough terrain, the tank has tracks. Try to take out the tracks or the leading wheel.

The weaknesses of tanks

The crew cannot hear due to how loud the tank is.
The crew can see poorly due to the difficulty of using viewing instruments while moving.
It is difficult to fire from a moving tank due to the amount of shaking. Effective fire can only be performed from a distance of 400 meters. In order to fire accurately, the tank will have to stop briefly.

Weak points of Fascist tanks

The tracks and leading wheels
Viewing ports
Bottom and roof
Engine compartment
Attack these sections. Carefully study figure 141 and remember where you have to shoot or throw grenades and flammable fluids to disable the tank.

http://9may.ru/images/galery/5543.JPG
[The boxes pointing to the turret say �sniper fire�. The one pointing to the engine compartment says �flammable fluid�. All the others say �bundle of grenades�]

Be ready to meet the tank

The sooner you notice it, the easier it will be to destroy.
During the day, use your eyes more than your ears. During the night, the sound of a tank's motor can be heard up to 900 meters, 450 if the wind is towards the tank, 1500 is the wind is towards you.
The sound of a moving tank travels even further.
A tank has appeared. Do not fret and run around from place to place. Conceal yourself using the environment. Hide in a ditch, hole, trench, pit or even a hill or bush.
Be ready to meet the tank and destroy it using any available equipment.
Learn where the Fascist tanks are located. Approach them unnoticed and destroy them.

Bullets and tanks

Using a 7.62mm rifle or regular machine gun, you can destroy tankettes, light tanks and armoured cars of the enemy. Open fire from 100-300 meters. Fire at the view ports of the tank. Accurate file can spray the crew with molten lead.
Especially accurate shooters (snipers) shoot at the viewing instruments and weapons of the tank.
Using large caliber machine guns, open fire at the gas tanks and sides of the tank. Armour in those places is usually thinner.
Heavy tanks have thicker armour. Use large caliber machine guns to fire at the viewing ports and weaponry.

Grenades against tanks

Destroy Fascist tanks using grenades thrown from 25-30 meters. The best device to use in this case is the anti-tank grenade (see page 132). Throw it from cover. Aim for the tracks, leading wheels, roof of the engine compartment and turret. If you don't have special anti-tank grenades, throw grenade bundles.
Here is how you make one. Five grenades, loaded and with the safety on, tie together with twine or wire: four grenades with handles in one direction and one in the other (fig. 142)
Take the bundle by the handle of the fifth grenade and throw it at the tank. That grenade explodes first and will trigger the rest of the bundle.
You can make the bundle from three type 1933 grenades. Take off the casing and screw off the handles from two of the grenades. Throw the bundle while holding the third grenade's handle.
After throwing the grenade, duck and take cover.
Antitank rifles and rifle grenades are also useful weapons against tanks. To see how to use them, look at pages 157 and 160.
If possible, sneak up to the tanks and attach explosives to weak points.

Ambushes.

Prepare ambushes on forest roads.
Partially saw some trees on both sides of the road. Leave about one quarter of the trunk intact. Saw at the height of 50-80cm.
Topple the trees across the road, preferably across each other, so their tops point towards the enemy. Have 15 meters of obstructions. Hide. Destroy stopped tanks using any methods available.
If you have antitank mines of explosives, lay them at the obstruction. This makes it impossible to clear the obstruction. If the crew leaves the tank to clear the road, kill them with rifles or grenades.
In case enemy tanks try to go around, set up mines at the side of the road.

Tank Traps

Dig a trench 3 meters in depth (fig 144). The width of the trench should be 5.5 meters at the top, 1.5 at the bottom. Construct a cover on top. For a foundation, use four moderately thick logs, two at the edges of the trench and two in the middle. On top of those, lay twigs and branches. Cover them with a thin layer of soil. People should be able to walk on top of the trap, but tanks should fall though.
Carefully disguise the trap. Remove excess dirt, even out the ground, lay down some grass. During the winter, cover the trap with snow.
Stay close to the trap. Destroy the tank with grenades or bottles. Shoot at the crew as they try to leave.

Combat against armoured cars

The same tactics apply against armoured cars. Throw grenades at the bottom of the car, leading and rear wheels and the mesh on the turret. Throw flammable fluid bottles at the front of the car, where the motor is. Remember that armoured cars have armour thinner than 10mm. It can be pierced with AP rounds from machine guns and rifles. Open fire from less than 300 meters. When facing heavy 4-axle cars, fire at the viewing ports from close range.
When fighting a truck, shoot at the driver, throw flammable fluid at the radiator or the driver, throw grenades at the wheels. If the truck is full of enemy soldiers, use an antitank grenade so they don't get away.

Wire against motorcycles

An enemy motorcyclist can be dismounted by putting up wire across his path. Choose a sturdy tree in a forest. Tie one end of the wire about 1 meter above the ground. Toss the wire across the road and stand near a tree across from the first one. When you hear the enemy approach, wrap the wire across the tree and hide. The motorcyclist will hit the wire and fall off. Destroy or capture him.

Winter obstructions

Snow obstructions: During the winter, fight tanks with snow. Build obstructions given a thickness of snow of at least 25cm. The height should be 1.5m, length � 4m. A tank that hits this obstruction will get stuck and the tracks will lose traction. It is better to make these traps after it gets warmer. In order to hold the snow in place, use straw or twigs, poking them into the snow. Make these traps close to hills, in lowlands and clearings in forest or bushes. It's good to make several of these, especially close to roads.
It makes sense to combine this trap with mines and tree obstructions. Place the mine diagonally on a solid base. The mines will explode under the tank.
Icing: Slopes steeper than 15 degrees should be covered in water. The resulting ice hill will cause the tank to lose traction. You can do this under -5 degrees. It is more effective at very low temperatures. Use this tactic on banks of rivers and streams.

Ice holes: Make holes in ice on rivers and lakes. The width should be 4 meters, the length, 5-6 meters. Cover the hole with branches and twigs and cover it with snow. Such a hole will last a long time and will not be noticed by moving tanks. This is a very effective technique. Remember to keep a distance of 2-2.5 meters between the holes.

Hunting group

Fight tanks in groups of 4-6 people. Two or three throw grenades or bottles. The rest open fire on the evacuating crew.
In case of an ambush, it is good to position some people on the trees. If making an ambush in a narrow place where the cars cannot go offroad, destroy the front and rear cars first. The resulting traffic jam will make it easier to destroy the rest.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 21:53

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Thanks! Very interesting, now I can stop a Pz.II with my buddies if need be.

# ? Nov 15, 2011 23:21

Burning Beard: Nov 21, 2008; Choking on bits of fallen bread crumbs
Oh, this burning beard, I have come undone
It's just as I've feared. I have, I have come undone
Bugger dumb the last of academe

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

So wish this was in English

(cool pics though, thanks for the link)

http://www.amazon.com/Partisans-Companion-Deadly-Techniques-Freedom/dp/1581604637

http://www.amazon.com/YOURSELF-BASHING-GUERRILLA-WARFARE-MANUAL/dp/1612000096/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321450362&sr=1-1

Here it is in English. I own the second one and it's quite fun.

# ? Nov 16, 2011 14:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 20:02

Ensign Expendable: Nov 11, 2008; Lager beer is proof that god loves us; Pillbug

The descriptions make it out to be a lot more exciting than it really is. I would also challenge its effectiveness in training Iraqi guerillas. A large amount of the book such as chemical warfare, winter survival, weapon maintenance, and of the German specific chapters would not be applicable to combat outside of that specific theater.

If I were to choose one, I would go with the Schmitt translation. The Grau and Greiss book seems to be pushing the popular history angle way too hard.

# ? Nov 18, 2011 05:16

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

«‹›372 »