Home Forums General General Your mysteries of military history

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 62 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #79075
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Do you have things that you have tried to figure out for ages?

    Does the information elude you? Let’s talk about it!

    Maybe someone will pipe in and it’ll turn out the information was there all along. Then you’ll feel smarter (and a little dumber for not noticing).
    Or maybe you’ll just feel better venting.

    Mine are very simple:

    A:
    How were trench shot guns issued to Americans in WW1 ?
    How many were available to a company/battalion/something else, how were they parcelled out, how many per squad if issued etc. etc. etc.

    Firearms books I’ve perused will talk at length about the weapon, its efficiency and German outrage but… nothing else.

    B:
    Federov Avtomat.
    Not a common weapon, but how was it actually employed?
    As a light machine gun? A rifle? As a team weapon? Something else entirely?

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79079
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    How did pike and shot armies actually work?

    Because intuitively, it seems to be warfare designed by children. “Put all the horsies all together on the sides, then all the men in the middle with all the men with spears all together and the men with guns all together, and it’s all nice and tidy, and…”

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79080
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    I’ve read a couple of books discussing it, including Haythornthwaites English Civil War book and I’m still not really certain how it functions “For real”.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79082
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    I’ve read a couple of books discussing it, including Haythornthwaites English Civil War book and I’m still not really certain how it functions “For real”.

    Precisely. I’m not too sure the people actually doing it knew either. 🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79083
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    “Listen, I don’t want to be here any more than you do, but if we just herd our guys towards their guys, they’re bound to figure it out, right? “

    “Great, we’ll call it Swedish Drill if they end up losing, just to cover things up”

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79087
    Mike Headden
    Participant

    How effective were Sumerian donkey carts? And if the answer is “not very” why in Nergal’s name did they have so many of them?

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!

    #79101

    Yeah. The pike and shot armies one gets me too. Another one: how did the Roman legionary “chekerboard” formation actually work in practice?

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #79141
    James Manto
    Participant

    Roman checkerboard for me.

    Roman line exchange.

    How can anyone get out of a battle with less than 50% casualties?

    #79155
    Chris Pringle
    Participant

    The freaking differences between the Toldi I, II, and IIa (or is it IIA?). III, of which 12 were built I’m cool with.

    Oh, Tim, that’s easy: successive upgrades in armour and armament.
    Toldi I (k.hk. A20) – first variant armed with 20 mm gun, 80 made.
    Toldi II (k.hk. B20) – variant with thicker front armour, 110 made.
    Toldi IIa (k.hk. B40) – modification developed in 1942, armed with 40 mm gun – 80 tanks of earlier variant were rearmed this way.
    Toldi III (k.hk. C40) – improved variant, only 12 made.
    And very cute they are too. I loved painting 3-colour markings on 3-colour camo in 1/300 scale …
    Chris
    Bloody Big BATTLES!
    #79156
    kyoteblue
    Participant

    Why didn’t the Germans just encircle Stalingrad and starve out the Russians?

    #79157
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Why didn’t the Germans just encircle Stalingrad and starve out the Russians?

     

    I’m guessing that the Volga was a bit of a problem. That and establishing a line of supply and communications as the rest of the German forces head for the ultimate objective – Baku and the oil fields.

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79158
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    Loads – Pike and Shot for one (several actually), but one that is always coming back to niggle me is the T-10 heavy tank – did it really turn up in the Syrian and/or Egyptian armies in the Six Days War? People keep saying it did and you see loads of them in wargame armies for the war but where are the tanks/photographs?

    I am pretty sure they were never exported but it won’t stop tales of them causing the Israelis lots of trouble (think poorly identified IS-3) and it won’t go away.

    (John Salt will be along in a minute to tell me he has one on his front lawn)

    #79159
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    It’s good to see that it’s not just me who is confused by pike and shot…

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79160
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Did T-44 actually see service at the end of WW2 or no ? Every book I read disagrees with the previous one, if it mentions the vehicle at all.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79161

    What brand of whiskey did U.S. Grant actually drink?

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #79164
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Were German tankers actually given meth?

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79166
    Etranger
    Participant

    Why didn’t the Germans just encircle Stalingrad and starve out the Russians?

    I’m guessing that the Volga was a bit of a problem. That and establishing a line of supply and communications as the rest of the German forces head for the ultimate objective – Baku and the oil fields.

    They didn’t need to do any of it except mask the Russian formations with a ‘flank guard’ whilst driving into the Caucasus.  There was absolutely no reason to go anywhere near Stalingrad, except for Hitler’s obsession with the name’s symbolism.

    #79167
    Etranger
    Participant

    Were German tankers actually given meth?

     

    Yes.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/crystal-meth-origins-link-back-to-nazi-germany-and-world-war-ii-a-901755.html

    RAF and USAAF crew were also given similar agents.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by Etranger.
    #79175
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Making amphetamine available to troops in WWII is hardly a closely guarded secret. Benzedrine was given to US and British tankers too, but only on the authority of an officer…

    This is probably a reliable source – King’s College.

    Amphetamines and the Second World War: Stimulating Interest in Drugs and Warfare

     

    Bear in mind that amphetamine wasn’t a Class A then.

     

     

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79176
    Russell Phillips
    Participant

    Do other nationalities’ AFVs have the equivalent of the British boiling vessel (BV)?

    In WWII, I believe tanks often had telephones on the back to allow infantry to communicate with the crew. Do modern AFVs still have them, and if so, which ones?

    Military history author
    Website : Twitter : Facebook

    #79189
    General Slade
    Participant

    At Waterloo, why didn’t Napoleon just ignore Hougoumont?

    #79192
    Russell Phillips
    Participant

    At Waterloo, why didn’t Napoleon just ignore Hougoumont?

    At least some histories seem to think that the attack on Hougoumont was only intended as a diversion. That seems to be debated, though, and I’ve never seen a definitive answer.

    Military history author
    Website : Twitter : Facebook

    #79207
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Ignoring the place would presumably also have exposed the French to fire in the flank as they advanced up the slopes?

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79209
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Making amphetamine available to troops in WWII is hardly a closely guarded secret. Benzedrine was given to US and British tankers too, but only on the authority of an officer…

    This is probably a reliable source – King’s College.

    Amphetamines and the Second World War: Stimulating Interest in Drugs and Warfare

    Bear in mind that amphetamine wasn’t a Class A then.

    Oh huh, thanks for sharing the picture. It always seemed like something that could be urban legend 🙂

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79276
    Chris Pringle
    Participant

    The freaking differences between the Toldi I, II, and IIa (or is it IIA?). III, of which 12 were built I’m cool with.

    Oh, Tim, that’s easy: successive upgrades in armour and armament.
    Toldi I (k.hk. A20) – first variant armed with 20 mm gun, 80 made. Toldi II (k.hk. B20) – variant with thicker front armour, 110 made. Toldi IIa (k.hk. B40) – modification developed in 1942, armed with 40 mm gun – 80 tanks of earlier variant were rearmed this way. Toldi III (k.hk. C40) – improved variant, only 12 made.
    And very cute they are too. I loved painting 3-colour markings on 3-colour camo in 1/300 scale …
    Chris
    Bloody Big BATTLES!

    🙂 Thanks Chris, but it’s a lot harder than that, for example how to tell a I from a II. Was there an uparmouring? Some sites say yes, some no. A couple of model companies , IBG in 1/72 and Hobby Boss in 1/35 produce models but show the same turret as the I (correct) but the uparmoured glacis of the 2a (which some sites call 2A) with two rectangular access hatches and no central light versus a single right side grill and armoured centre light. I have found no photographic evidence for such a configuration. The more you look to try and get armour thicknesses to try and differentiate between the I and II for war game stats, the deeper the proverbial rabbit hole becomes. 😀 LOL All the best and Merry Christmas. PS, I’m making headway.

    I just wrote a long reply, then the Forum decided not to recognise me and lost it … abbreviated version again here. I should have known better than to trust Wikipedia!

    My friend Csaba Becze gives the answer in his book “Magyar Steel”; there is more detail in Bonhardt, Sarhidai and Winkler, “A magyar kiralyi honvedseg fegyverzete”. The main difference between Toldi I and Toldi II was not armour but simply that Toldi II used stronger Hungarian-made torsion springs instead of weak German ones. The other was that Toldi II used an R-5/a radio with rod antenna instead of Toldi I’s R-5 with arc antenna.

    Chris

    Bloody Big BATTLES!

    https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

    http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

    #79280
    General Slade
    Participant

    At Waterloo, why didn’t Napoleon just ignore Hougoumont?

    At least some histories seem to think that the attack on Hougoumont was only intended as a diversion. That seems to be debated, though, and I’ve never seen a definitive answer.

    I’ve seen that suggested too but if it was it seems to have been the French rather than the Anglo-Allies who ended up getting diverted.

    Ignoring the place would presumably also have exposed the French to fire in the flank as they advanced up the slopes?

    But isn’t that what skirmishers are for?  You cover your flanks with skirmishers to draw the fire of the troops in the Chateau and then just march on past?

    #79289

    Here’s one I don’t get: why does it seem that every country in the world except the U.S. has trouble with catapult technology for their aitrcraft carriers? This dosen’t seem like too difficult a thing to engineer, but apparently it’s harder than building a rocket or an atomic bomb.

    Why?

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #79293
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    The Royal Navy invented the steam catapult, but then scrapped all its large carriers. There wasn’t a need, so development stopped and the RN invested in VSTOL/STOAR aircraft.

    France’s CATOBAR on her carriers seems to work well enough. The Russian Mig29 and Su33 use full throttle and a rolling take off.

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79325
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    This seems as good a place as any.

    Could WW1 era tanks turn in place or did they have to “wheel” when turning?

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79354
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Making amphetamine available to troops in WWII is hardly a closely guarded secret. Benzedrine was given to US and British tankers too, but only on the authority of an officer… This is probably a reliable source – King’s College. Amphetamines and the Second World War: Stimulating Interest in Drugs and Warfare Bear in mind that amphetamine wasn’t a Class A then.

    Oh huh, thanks for sharing the picture. It always seemed like something that could be urban legend 🙂

     

    Did you read the article in the link? Their use is a matter of record.

    As it goes, the first mention I remember reading of drugs taking by the military in WWII was in a novel I read as a young teenager well over 40 years ago. I can still recall the title, ‘Death of a Regiment’ by John Foley. I also recall thinking “soldiers taking Bennies? That’s a bit far fetched” 😀

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79357
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Yeah, I did read it. What I meant was that without that information, it sounded like the sort of thing that started as an urban legend, hence my asking the question to begin with 🙂

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79374
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Loads – Pike and Shot for one (several actually), but one that is always coming back to niggle me is the T-10 heavy tank – did it really turn up in the Syrian and/or Egyptian armies in the Six Days War? People keep saying it did and you see loads of them in wargame armies for the war but where are the tanks/photographs?

    I am pretty sure they were never exported but it won’t stop tales of them causing the Israelis lots of trouble (think poorly identified IS-3) and it won’t go away.

    (John Salt will be along in a minute to tell me he has one on his front lawn)

    I’ve never heard of T-10s being exported, and can’t find any serious evidence that they were. I was only aware of the Egytians fielding IS-3Ms in 1967, as mentioned in “The Tanks of Tammuz”. There are all those T-10M counters in Avalon Hill’s “Arab-Israeli Wars”, but I think they are just plain wrong, as are the designations of the Israeli Shermans and the “Patturion” (presumably intended to be the Sho’t Kal) in the game.

    I don’t have a front lawn, so it is vacuously true that I have a T-10M on my front lawn (or, equivalently, none of my front lawns do not have a T-10M on them).

    All the best,

    John.

    #79376
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Did T-44 actually see service at the end of WW2 or no ? Every book I read disagrees with the previous one, if it mentions the vehicle at all.

    As far as I can make out, the T-44 was certainly in service in small numbers (according to Karpenko it was accepted into service in 1944, and 655 produced in 1944-45) but never saw combat.

    All the best,

    John.

    #79378
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    As far as I can make out, the T-44 was certainly in service in small nunbers (according to Karpenko it was accepted into service in 1944, and 655 produced in 1944-45) but never saw combat.

    All the best,

    John.

    As wargamers that’s enough reason to buy 20 of them 🙂

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #79381
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks John!

    I’m glad to hear that none of your front lawns do not have a T-10M on them.

    I think.

    не знаю

    Guy

    #79390
    zippyfusenet
    Participant

    Why did anyone wear horns on their helmets? Not Vikings, of course, they had more sense…but these guys: http://funkystock.photoshelter.com/image/I0000em1ktDnNG9Q

    and these guys: https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/ancient-mysteries/the-mysterious-nuragic-civilization-of-sardinia

    and many others.

    Someone I trust told me that the best helmet is a smooth pot that allows blows to glance off. The same person pointed out that any decorative protuberance on the helmet, like a horn or a spike or a crest, is likely to catch a weapon that is striking a blow, whether a club, an axe or a sword. If the helmet is loosely fastened, it could be knocked off. If it’s tightly fastened, the wearer’s neck could be wrenched. Either outcome is bad.

    Despite all talk about ‘horned helmets’, I believe the standard Viking helmet was a conical cap with no protuberances. Those Norskies knew their business. Why did so many other professional warriors risk their necks by attaching horns, wings, small animal effigies, horse tails and other doo-dads to their helmets?

    You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

    #79415
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Federov Avtomat.
    Not a common weapon, but how was it actually employed?
    As a light machine gun? A rifle? As a team weapon? Something else entirely?

    From “Avtomat Fyodorova”, I Sverchkov, Experimental Weapons Range of the Higher School of Musketry, Moscow, 1923 (downloaded from Forgotten Weapons, translation by Google translate tidied by me):

    Вес и размеры автомата почти те же, что и обыкноновенной винтовки. Поэтому переноска его, вместе с некоторым количеством патронов, принадлежностью для разборки и чистки и комплектов запасных частей для быстрого исправления случайных поломок, а также действие им в бою по силам одному человеку. Но, обладая значительной скорострелностю, автомат нуждается в значительном дополнительном запасе патронов, а также в обеспечении возможности пополнять его в течение боя. Для пошения этого дополнительного запаса и для доставки патронов с тыла, в распоряжении автоматчика имеется помощник, который в то же время служит и его заместителем.

    The weight and dimensions of the automatic are almost the same as the conventional rifle. Therefore carrying it, along with some quantity of cartridges, stripping and cleaning tools, and sets of spare parts for quick correction of stoppages, as well as operating it in battle, is within the capacity of one person. However, having a high rate of fire, the weapon needs a significant additional stock of cartridges, as well as needing to be replenished during battle. To carry this extra stock and to deliver cartridges from the rear, an assistant is at the disposal of the automatic rifleman, who at the same time serves as his deputy.

    Принимая во внимание все вышеизложенное, отдельный автоматчик с 1-2 помощниками, может заменить собою б огневным бою, стреляя одиночными выстрелами – двух-трех, а применяя огонь непрерывный – до 10 ружейных стрелков, причем, по сравненю с этою группою: а) занимает на позиции меньше места, может легче исползовать наличные закрытия, быть менее заметным и уязвимым для противника и не стеснен соседями в отношении направления выстрелов; б) дает огонь, легче поддающийся управлению и дисциплине; в) звуком своей стрельбы напоминает пулемет и может произвести на противника более сильное моральное воздействие.

    Considering all the above, an individual automatic rifleman with 1-2 assistants in a fire fight can, firing single shots, replace two or three riflemen, and, using continuous fire, up to ten. Compared with this group, this: a) takes up less space on the position, makes personal concealment easier, is less visible and vulnerable to the enemy, and not so constrained by neighbors in the direction of fire; b) gives a fire that is easier to control and discipline; and c) the sound of his shooting resembles a machine gun and can produce a stronger moral impact on the enemy.

    All the best,

    John.

    #79440
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Why did so many other professional warriors risk their necks by attaching horns, wings, small animal effigies, horse tails and other doo-dads to their helmets?

     

    Professional warriors you say?

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #79466
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Professional warriors you say?

    Surely warriors are all amateurs, professionals are soldiers. Etymologically speaking, anyway. I bet Susie Dent would back me up on this.

    All the best,

    John.

    #79468
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Pedant Alert! Pedant Alert!!

     

    🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 62 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.