|
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the German military intelligence had a part (don't know how big exactly) in instilling some of the suspicions that eventually led to the Great Purge in the Red Army in the thirties. Any truth to that, or am I just remembering some blurb from a generic Sven Hassel book volume 12: SS Death Army of Doom?
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Iron Squid posted:Did the spike have any functional purpose, anyways? Or was it just 1916 bling? They used to attach black or white (horse hair?) plumes on them when they wore their dress uniforms. Other than that, they were just decorative, and by 1916 they had actually started to replace the helmet model with the (almost as iconic) stahlhelm, which actually provided some protection, instead of just looking wicked.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:This is not a serious theory as the Japanese were already talking about how to approach a surrender before the bombs fell, to a large degree because of them fearing being invaded by the Soviets. Wasn't the biggest problem with the Japanese pre- atomic bombing peace/surrender proposals the fact that they were hoping to keep Korea, Manchuria, Formosa etc., or at least some of their pre- war dominions, while the Allies had agreed among themselves (in Yalta, or was it Tehran) that they would not accept anything short of total surrender from Japan and Germany?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 12:26
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:America never enters the war and concentrates instead on its ambitions in the Far East, in China and Korea with a springboard from the Philippines. Wasn't Korea pretty firmly in Japanese control by the beginning of WWI, what with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910 and all?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 12:05
|
|
|
Gimpalimpa posted:And if Snackbar is around, I really want to learn more regarding Japan's non-use of shields...that was kinda missed. You mean like why the samurai didn't use them back in feudal Japan? I believe the reason was that despite China being an important source of cultural imports over the centuries, warfare in Japan became quite "incestuous", and in some ways ritualized because the Japanese fought almost no foreign enemies, only each other in series of civil wars (Mongol invasion attempts in the 13th century and Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century being the two big exceptions). Shields, and weapons such as maces, battle axes and crossbows were all used in Japanese warfare at one point or another, but were marginalized in favor of the "big three" of spears/pole arms, bows and swords, all of which were best used with two hands, or so the Japanese felt at least. Heavy pavise- type shields were still used, especially in sieges but at times also on the battlefield, but generally speaking regular shields fell out of favor. Of course this doesn't explain the eagerness with which the Japanese adopted firearms when they were first brought to Japan by the Portuguese traders in the mid-16th century. The moment happened to be right for that, what with the Ashikaga shogunate proven weak after the Ōnin War, and with plenty of strong, power-greedy warlords in the country looking for means to get ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:stuff I swear I read an excellent article on the subject somewhere on the net (possibly samurai archives forums) way back when, but now I can't for the life of me find it anywhere, nor can I remember all the points it made. In any case, the relative cultural insularity of an island nation (and it's effects on the internal warfare of said nation), the lack of resources, and the general preference of mobility over protection when it came to light infantry have always seemed convincing reasons to me as to why the Japanese stopped using shields.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, according to legends the Parthians killed Crassus by pouring molten gold down his throat, a befitting end for the richest man in Rome. I guess the reality was a little less epic than that, but still, the Romans loved a good story.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Freeze posted:I think he was probably referring mostly to the bright red coats still being used after the invention of rifles. Rifles began to appear on the battlefield already during the 18th century (if not earlier, I'm not sure). Just about every army dressed colorfully back then, and continued to do so through the 19th century.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Yeah, the FT-17 was pretty much the first tank with the "standard configuration", with driver in the front, engine in the back, and the armament on top of the vehicle in a rotating turret. Just about every country with an armored force used them after the war, and they even saw some action in WW2, despite being badly outdated at that point.
Puukko naamassa fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Edit is not quote.
Puukko naamassa fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
To be exact, the drivers' viewport of a Tiger tank had SIX layers of armored glass, plus one sheet just behind them. I doubt a Thompson SMG would be enough to penetrate that, but I guess it would scrape it pretty badly, partially blinding the driver. It's still pretty silly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2010 12:22
|
|
|
Another interesting read is Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel. Jünger had a bit of an hard-on for war, and it shows. He was wounded 14 times during WW1 and was awarded both the Iron Cross 1st Class and the Pour le Mérite (he was the youngest-ever recipient of it). He wrote several other books too, and lived a pretty interesting life.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:I would like to read it, I heard it is the opposite of all quiet. Is that accurate? Yeah, you could describe it as such. When it comes to graphic description of trench warfare, it's not all that different from All Quiet on the Western Front, and Jünger doesn't gloss over the many deaths that occur, but he does paint himself and his fellow soldiers as noble and dauntless men, glorifies combat, and in a preface written for one of the editions of the book, states that "Time only strengthens my conviction that it was a good and strenuous life, and that the war, for all its destructiveness, was an incomparable schooling of the heart".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 10:01
|
|
|
Midnight- posted:Can anyone recommend books on Roman military history? Mainly interested in the Caesers war in Gaul, or the civil war(s) that followed. Adrian Goldsworthy's books are pretty easy to approach IMO, so I'd suggest Caesar: Life of a Colossus. It's a biography, so it covers his life from the beginning, but the conquest of Gaul and later civil wars are also well covered.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah, the actual chance for CSA to gain the recognition (and possible support) of Great Britain most likely passed with the Battle of Antietam in September 1862. It's funny how history sometimes goes. Had those two Union soldiers not found Lee's Special Order 191 that had been lost by some Confederate officer, it's unlikely that the whole Battle of Antietam would have happened, as George B. McClellan was far too cautious in pursuing Lee. Without the battle, Lincoln wouldn't have had the confidence to go ahead the Emancipation Proclamation. Lee would have been able to march further into Maryland, and later probably into Pennsylvania, and eventually engage McClellan (and probably to do so in his own terms, as there's little question as to which one of the two was the better general). Whatever would happen, it would certainly affect both the British and French views of the legitimacy of CSA, and also the 1862 elections in Washington.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
I'd have to go with J.E.B Stuart. Fancy plumed hat? Check. Magnificent beard? Check. A cavalier attitude? Check. Sure, he hosed up a bit at Gettysburg but still remains my favorite.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 08:09
|
|
|
Any self-respecting nation has to have an internal bloodletting of some sort at some point in its history, followed by decades if not centuries of bitterness and anger.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They argue about what to call it? What are the options? These days it's usually simply called "Sisällissota" ("Internal War", translates to "Civil War"), but in the decades following 1918 and before the end of WW2, it was often referred to in official sources as "Vapaussota" (direct translation would be "Freedom war", AFAIK it's usually translated as "Independece war"), which was not entirely true, but the winning side tried to put a romantic spin on the bloody events. Another name used mainly by the winning side was "Red rebellion", while the reds themselves sometimes referred to the conflict as the "Class war", or simply just "the Revolution". Other names include "Crofter rebellion", "Veljessota" ("War of Brothers") and "Kansalaissota" (another Finnish name for "Civil war"). The more neutral ways to refer to the conflict are probably "The War of 1918", or even just "The events of (the spring of) 1918".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 07:55
|
|
|
I'm guessing he meant the capitals of European nations that participated in the war. As for Finnish people not mentioning Continuation War because we were the agressors that time, I'm not so sure if that's the reason. Most people will still try to justify it by saying "we had no other choice but to side with the nazis and attack", which is not entirely wrong as Soviet Union certainly had plans for Finland post-Winter War too, but it's also not entirely right either. What would have happened to Finland after the Winter War if we had not seeked German support and instead tried to return to neutrality or seek closer relations with Allies can only be speculated, but I'm pretty sure the whole "ajopuu"-theory has been debunked by now. I believe that people don't talk about it as much simply because it wasn't as remarkable (dramatic, if you will) as the Winter War was, but it will still be defended by many Finns as justified. The far larger number of war movies about the Continuation War (I can think of six, two of which came out within the last decade) than about the Winter War (just one) speaks for itself, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Well, to be fair, the Continuation War was about reclaiming what was lost during the Winter War, so you can hardly say it was completely unjustified. Hell, Hitler wanted the Finish to help occupy Russia (the Leningrad area, to be specific), but Mannerheim told him to go suck it. True, in Continuation War Finland tried to reclaim what it had lost in the Winter War, but what's not acknowledged (or even fully known) by many Finns is that we also tried to do it "with interest". Here is Finland in 1939, before the Winter War:  ...and here's the furthest Finnish and German troops pushed during the Continuation War:  As you can see, the Finnish Army went quite a bit further than just the pre-war borders. Finnish military leaders justified this with acquiring areas that could be more easily defended, and in addition if things would go bad, these areas could be used to bargain with the Soviet Union (didn't quite work out that way). However among some circles these actions were seen as necessary steps in the formation of so-called Greater Finland, which would encompass not just the pre-war Finnish Karelia and Pechenga, but also what is today the Republic of Karelia and the Murmansk Oblast, which had never been a part of the Republic of Finland, or the Grand Duchy before it. Something along these lines:  This kind of thing is what many Finns conveniently forget these days. Though "Greater Finland" was mostly the dream of a small right-wing minority of the population back then, it's nevertheless pretty embarassing. Puukko naamassa fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Aug 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that the SS pretty much hosed up their chances of getting more Swedish volunteers into the Waffen-SS by disrespectful treatment of a Swedish officer who had joined, which alienated/angered the Swedish officer corps. Without the support of Swedish army officers, any recruitment attempts wouldn't have succeeded. I think it was in George H. Stein's book Waffen-SS, any truth to it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
Captured guns of various caliber were a fairly important part of the Atlantic Wall, such as the ex-French Army Canon de 155mm GPF (the guns that the Rangers were supposed to find & destroy at Pointe du Hoc on D-Day were of this type), and the ex-Soviet Army 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In the Winter War though, they were facing generally inferior aircraft (mostly I-15 and I-153 biplanes) being flown by incompetent Soviet pilots. Plus, the cold environment helped performance a lot, both in terms of overheating and in engine power, and the Finnish pilots were pretty outstanding in their own right. Actually, the first Brewster Buffalos arrived to Finland close to the end of the Winter War, and saw no action in that conflict. The main Finnish fighters in the Winter War were Fokker D.XXI, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat G.50. The Brewsters went into action during the Continuation War (1941-44), in which Finland invaded Soviet Union alongside nazi Germany. Early on they did encounter mainly I-16's and I-15/152/153's , but soon also faced Mig 3's, LaGG-3's, Hurricanes and small numbers of other types such as Tomahawks and Spitfires. Against most of these, they performed either well or at least adequately, but started having trouble with newer Soviet planes. Never the less the Brewsters remained in service all the way to the end of the war, alongside Messerschmitt Bf 109's that had been recieved from Germany, and scored some victories against such plane types as La-5, Yak-9 and Aircobra. One thing that made the Brewsters better in the hands of the FAF was the lack of carrier service equipment, which made the plane somewhat lighter, and the colder climate also helped, as you mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2010 13:18
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:I'm not sure about Poland since I don't know much about that campaign, but given that they tried to use cavalry against tanks I'd say "yes". IIRC the "Polish cavarly charging German tanks"- thing is a myth that was born when a Polish cavalry unit that was skirmishing with some German infantry was surprised by a German armored unit (armored cars, not tanks), and a bunch of war correspodents who happened upon the scene afterwards got a bit imaginative. Poland did about as well as a nation outnumbered both technologically and numerically could hope to do in that situation. They didn't have such balancing factors as weather, poor enemy leadership or poor enemy training on their side, like the Finnish Army had in the Winter War and the Greek Army had when Italy invaded in 1940.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2010 12:02
|
|
|
Vino posted:What? You can't just build a bridge in the middle of a battle. Or am I missing what you're trying to say? Well, there are bridgelayer tanks, for example. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2010 12:23
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Edit: Hell, I don't even know what gear they had, behind hearing that they used BARs It was basically the same stuff they had in WW2. For example the initial U.S. forces that went to Korea were equipped with the M9 "Bazooka", despite there being a newer, more effective M20 "Superbazooka". The M20 hadn't been put to widespread use due to budgetcuts in the immediate post-WW2 years, so American soldiers had to go up against T-34's with M9s, which reportedly wasn't very effective, and the problem was aggrevated due to to the use of deteriorated WW2-era ammo stockpiles.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:In the same vein though, how many times did Soviet Union/U.S. troops exhange direct fire during the Cold War? Did they ever? At least in the Korean war, Soviet pilots flew MiG-15's that had North Korean or Chinese markings and frequently engaged US aircraft, and During the Vietnam war, Soviet crews operated some of the SAM batteries in North Vietnam that shot down B-52's. This was of course all very hush-hush.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 13:35
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:IIRC, in some units it went beyond lack of instruction all the way to wrong instruction. In some cases the idea that the gas system doesn't need cleaning got distorted to the gun as a whole not needing cleaning. It's not hard to imagine how that could lead to reliability issues. I love how, among other things, the US Army published a comic book for the soldiers to battle this problem. "Treat your rifle like a lady." Art by Will Eisner.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2010 14:13
|
|
|
chiyosdad posted:What are some good "historical fiction" books (or movies, animu etc)? Something that is relatively accurate and well written, like Killer Angels, except I'm more interested in ancient stuff--Romans, Greeks, Alexander, Mursili 2 vs Ramses 2, stuff like that. I find that wikipedia reading is a bit dry. If Napoleonic wars-era naval action doesn't sound too boring to you, I would suggest Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey & Maturin- series. The 2003 movie Master & Commander was based on it. Don't know much about anime, but Hitoshi Iwaaki's manga "Historie" is based on the life of Eumenes, who was a secretary and a general in service of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great. It's fairly well written and also relatively realistic, but does take some liberties with history (such as what Alexander looks like).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:
Good thing these can still be found online, even if they're pretty horrible to look at. Majority of them seem to be from the Continuation war though, and the file names are google-translated as the uploader admits in the Discussion section, which leads to some confusing things (like the picture of the civilian victims of Soviet partisans having the description "Dead partisans transported to cemetery").
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Christoff posted:I don't want to bomb this page with the same pictures but can anyone identify all the rank/insignia from the pictures I posted on the last page? Well, at least according to that obituary he was a Feldwebel, which equals Staff Sergeant in the US Army. So he was a middle-rank non-comissioned officer, but not a "proper" officer. That particular picture you posted is a bit too blurry to make out any details, but that patch on his sleeve and on his cap in the other pic seem to depict the Edelweiss (he also seems to have them on his chest along with the medals in the other pic), which would mean that he was in the German mountain infantry, or Gebirgsjäger. That would make sense, since there was IIRC at least two Gebirgsjäger divisions operating in Lapland. By the way, according to the obituary, he was killed on 9th of October 1944, and by that time Finland was already at war with Germany, though judging by the place of death (which is in Pechenga/Petsamo) he did indeed die fighting Soviets and not Finns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Christoff posted:And that chain going from his shoulder? I did some quick research, and looks like it's not a chain but the lanyard of a Badge of Marksmanship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_Badge_of_Marksmanship
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Not knowing anything other than the most basic stuff about Finland, I have a question. Supposing that (for whatever handwaved reason) the USSR does not carry out the Winter War, would Finland be neutral in 1941? Or would they find a way to stay neutral a la Sweden? I don't know if its true, but Finland is always depicted as being much more pro-Nazi. Now whether that was pre-Winter War or a result of it I haven't a clue. There was certainly a strong right wing element in Finland who still dreamed about annexing East Karelia to Finland (as they had tried and failed to do in the early 20s), though most of them could be described more as pro-Germany rather than pro-Nazi. They might have attempted to steer Finland towards war alongside Germany against USSR to achieve that (not to mention the idea of neutralizing Russia for good would have seemed like an attractive idea), but without the Winter War they would have had a really hard time convincing the more conservative leaders, not to mention the people who were still divided following the Civil War of 1918. Even if Finland wanted to stay outside of the war, there's a good chance Germany and/or Soviet Union would force it to choose a side. Germany could for example extort Finland by refusing to sell any grain to them, or to let any grain shipments past Skaggerak (which they controlled from 1940 onwards) which would have led to a famine in Finland in 1941-42. The Soviets meanwhile could threaten with invasion if Finland continued to sell nickel to Germany. The Kolosjoki nickel mine in Petsamo (these days Nikel in the Pechengsky District of Murmansk Oblast) was pretty vulnerable and I doubt Finland's neutrality would weigh a whole lot if either Germany or USSR decided to come in and take control of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Also the Soviets made the 82mm mortar so they could use NATO 81mm mortar rounds as well as their own. Uh, the Soviets developed their first 82mm mortar already in the 1930s and it was their main medium mortar calibre through WW2, were they really looking that far ahead? Edit: beaten
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Airpower became important enough to constitute a separate service, in addition it recognized the service and effort made by the air crews during the war. Since I believe most other countries with an air force had it as a separate branch, it was a logical move as well. Yeah, I think by the time WW2 started, Japan and USA were just about the only power players whose air forces were still part of the Army instead of being a separate service branch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:A fair number of the more notorious western figures saw action in the various paramilitary/militia/guerrilla conflicts going on in the Midwest. The Midwestern war didn't have the kind of body count the war in the East produced but it also didn't have a lot of rules. Banditry, torture, and massacres of civilians were common. When the war ended a lot of the guerrillas found themselves in a real ugly situation and headed West before they could be caught and hanged. Yeah, for example Jesse James and his brother Frank rode with such charming fellows as Willam Quantrill and "Bloody Bill" Anderson, and may have taken part in the Lawrence massacre, among other atrocities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So how did Rome get that disciplined anyway/how come by the tenth time or something when they kicked an entire nation's rear end completely nobody started emulating them? IIRC some nations (Armenians, Numidians and the Selceucids come to mind) did try to copy them by forming similar units, but nothing much ever came out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Holy poo poo, where can I see videos of all this? It's been said, but the Soviet airforce was the best airforce Here's a short newsreel that features Soviet paratroopers jumping from a TB-3 (from 0:48 onwards): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNEbBe-_Ak4 They climb out of the plane and on to the wing, then slide down it. 
Puukko naamassa fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Burning Beard posted:By late '44-45 there was just no time to train a pilot to fight against an American, something like less than 75 hours of flight time against nearly 300 hours. By that point in the war we could afford to train pilots; we had a surplus, the Japanese did not. I'm pretty sure Japan's ever-dwindling oil reserves were the main reason for the cuts in flight hours, not the lack of time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Out of genuine curiosity, what would be the comedy reply? He's referring to this reply from the previous page: Trench_Rat posted:commedy option 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
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 08:55
|
|