Thanks for the idea Coog.
Printable View
Here is a good book on the Marne that I read a couple of months ago. It gives good insight on what went wrong.
Herwig, Holger. "The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle That Changed the World"
http://www.amazon.com/Marne-1914-Ope...e+of+the+marne
I'd go further, much of the technical "novelty" about the ACW is actually a sort of US chauvinism, and in many ways, at least initially the ACW was very backward - Moltke may have been partly right when he said "we have nothing to learn from armed mobs". The many "firsts" claimed by the ACW turn out to be seconds or thirds, and the lessons already were being assimilated back in Europe. Particularly on the naval side, where the many ironclads are very much a generation behind the British and French. Possibly more tellingly, the tactics in use on land were to all intents Napoleonic in nature, both sides using the same drillbook which was firmly fixed in the early part of the 19th C. Having said that, the transformation from Moltke's "armed mobs" to the Union Army of 1865 is damned impressive, and while the cavalry arm may have lacked finesse as battle cavalry, they were undoubtedly the finest mounted infantry in the world.
If pushed, I would say the real precursor to WW1 was the Russo Japanese War
Ducks for cover :erk:
Yes, but how many of them ever saw action? _Warrior_ never so much as snapped a gun-lock in action; _Gloire_, same. Meanwhile, the US (and CS :) ) were acquiring actual battlefield data on what happened with ironclads -- and not just on the battlefield, but the REMFwork as well.
"All theory is gray, my friend. But forever green is the tree of life."
Mainly a byproduct of the weapon being used -- muzzleloaders are infamously slow, and progressively less accurate (it's worth noting: A ML's accuracy goes away altogether after ~40 shots; now look how many shots most INF of the period carried...).
My personal favorite unit of the ACW, tho', was a whole other kettle of fish -- Wilder's "Lightning" Brigade. Four regiments of mounted infantry, carrying Spencer repeaters. The Battle of Hoover's Gap showed what rapid-moving and -firing troops could accomplish; it was expected to take *three days* to get the main force of AoCumberland to the Gap, but Wilder's bunch pulled it off in *one*. (OK, admittedly part of it was a colossal Rookie Mistake on the brigade's part -- they were told to trot into the Gap; they Galloped. When they realized they were "in the breeze", they could as easily have retreated; instead, they decided to hold until relieved, and in the process shot the hell out of two Rebel brigades. "If it's stupid, and it works, it isn't stupid." :) ) Again: Real-World Data being acquired.
See above -- most Union "cavalry" was closer to dragoons; it was the Rebs who went for the "traditional" cav model.
Mm -- had the Russians been somewhat more ept, maybe someone would have noticed; as it was, most of Europe looked on it as "a couple of savages slapping each other around; nothing for Real Men to take notice of". (One of the negative aspects of the Victorian Era was the flamboyant bigotry of the period; it's part of why WW1 so thoroughly demolished the era.) The ACW, OTOH, was pretty-much entirely "folks indistinguishable from us"; the Europeans had to come up with some serious excuses to justify ignoring that one.
Just saw the comments about the Gettysburg movie. Was there for the week that Pickett's charge was filmed (my unit was Co I, 2nd South Carolina). Brought chill when we were on the actual battlefield doing the opening scene of the charge. The part when Gen Lee comes riding down before the charge was not planned but just happened and was left in the movie. Had a great time being there and helping make that movie.
I want an autograph at Origins.
I can picture that scene. There were many memorable ones in that film. I love the scene when Chamberlain is being relieved after the charge securing Little Round Top, and the other Union officer asks if he could shake Chamberlain's hand. That one gets me every time.
This movie was the start of my exploration into ACW.
Damn - I thought that the US entered the World Wars to fight for Freedom and Democracy, or at least enlightened self interest? Not that that has anything to do with the original point about the ACW, but I would also point out that "Europe" didn't need the USA in either of the World Wars, they (we) were killing each other very effectively without outside intervention.
As for the First world War, the US brought only fresh meat, no technical or tactical innovation as far as I can see, and while the immense industrial strength of the USA cannot be understated, it also has to be said that that strength had not been brought to bear by 1918, as can be judged by the fact that most of the equipment used by the US Army was from French or British sources. That of course is an over-simplification. The threat of those masses of fresh troops and the industrial colossus that would arrive in 1919 certainly forced the German hand in 1918, leading to their defeat.
WW2 is a different matter. I can happily argue that the greatest contribution the USA made strategically was providing the trucks and tinned food that allowed the Soviets to fight a mobile war and beat the Germans, and I feel that would at a fundamental level be true. I will also point out that all that "Lend - Lease" aid was actually paid for, in fact the UK only stopped paying for it very recently, so some of that "help" came with a big bill.
The problem is that would also belittle the tremendous commitment and sacrifice the US people made, they really were the "Greatest Generation". As a Brit I'm eternally grateful that the US joined the war on the side of the Allies, but that shouldn't blind us to the historical record.
I think this may be construed in some places as trolling, so I'll creep back to my cave - wake me when SOG arrives
I'll pass on taking the bait.
If I had a nickel for every time I bit my lip and kept my mouth shut, I'd be touring the world First Class, for the rest of my life.:beer:
I just started reading this thread today and I find it absolutely fascinating in it's evolution. Just fascinating. I have to agree with everyone about 2 things: The wims of the postal service and the overtaxing of everyones government,but the most important question is when are we going to get our TOYS?????
Hi Tony. If you're here for any length of time you'll notice that thread drift is quite common. Case in point; going from the original OP to discussions on the American Civil War, taxes, Sherman tanks vs. everything else and WW1/WW2 is just how it's working. I think the main reason for that is we're tired of waiting for our 'toys' and there's not enough else to talk about.
So since we have passed an entire week after the holiday since the stuff was to have arrived at the warehouse and still no word, I think that speculation in the absence of knowledge starts to take hold.
I wonder if the warehouse in Ft Wayne is one where many shipments from many companies arrive are sorted and then sent on.
If so, the Ares stuff may well have arrived but is still in queue to be sorted behind who knows how many other batches.
With the Christmas shipping season now in high gear, it may be anyone's guess when the Ares stuff gets to the top of the stack at the warehouse.
I think your speculation concerning the warehouse may be spot on. At least I have other ships and projects to work on.
However, I keep thinking that if I'd been given permission from the powers that be, I could have driven to Ft. Wayne, dived into the containers myself, grabbed just my stuff and been back home several days ago. Heck, we might have gotten a convoy of folks heading there? :sly: (yes I know that's totally unrealistic, but it's fun to speculate in another direction)
No doubt a motivated "squad" from this site could have made quick work of getting the shipment processed and on it's way.
I wonder if the Ares folks may be nearly as in the dark about when the warehouse will get their stuff processed as we are.
That would certainly explain the lack of additional updates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQSFmrkR-QA
Of course not!?! :happy:
No, threads here don't drift... they just tack with the prevailing winds of member contributions. :D
As I understand it: When the Charge was ordered, many of the extras were sobbing as they went in....
Nah -- the US mainly gets into wars because folks can't seem to figure out to Leave The US Alone. :)
Recommended Reading: _The Myth of the Great War_, John Mosier. Short version: If the US hadn't been around for the '18 German offensives, at the very least the war would have ended in a "dog fall", as the Germans defeat the West, but then have to race home to deal with the Commie uprisings back home. (A certain Lt. Col. of cavalry with the initials "GSP" would be *really* interested to hear about his lack of tactical innovation where Armor was concerned. :) )
A sizable percentage of Soviet losses were the result not of enemy action, but of their government's own brutality -- NKVD commissars executing people; penal-infantry battalions being used up in suicide attacks; deliberate starvation of civilians; the list goes on and on (sometimes expressed as "half of them were killed by the Germans; the other half contracted fatal cases of NKVD"). The West, conversely, ran a far more-efficient, and thus far less bloody, war. Just because a side ends up with a high body-count doesn't mean it did most of the work in a war; in fact, in most cases, it means someone on that side Really Screwed Up (contrast the Army of the Potomac's body-count with how far it actually moved in the ACW, vs., say, Army of the Cumberland, and how much enemy territory *it* took during the war). The "no Second Front until mid-'44" lie is just more Soviet agitprop, repeated loud enough and often enough for some people to buy it. (There's also unconfirmed rumors that Uncle Joe deliberately let Barbarossa go off, as the hammer would fall heaviest not on Russia proper, but on "occupied" nations to the West -- Ukraine, Belarus, etc. -- and particularly among the restive populations therein agitating for freedom from the Soviet Union; the ones who weren't killed by the Germans would join them, and could then be justifiably "removed" when the USSR won.) The Soviets took a hit, to be sure; but there's some question of just how much of that hit was inflicted by others, and more questions as to whether they could have been beaten on a bit less.
It isn't "the historical record" which is the problem; it's the way some (mercifully deceased) groups tried to misinterpret, mangle, and muddle the record for their own advantage. It's gotten to where it's almost impossible to discuss any historical topic without it getting tangled up in Politics (this is why so many fora, this one included, have "no religion, no politics" rules) -- "for any culture, the right history is worth 100 divisions", as Dear Old Uncle Adi's crew put it; and they were right on that score.
Now where'n'ell's my _SoG_? :P
http://www.terraquote.com/quote/1161...ntial-fact-to/
"I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being, except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet Armies."
The Germans lost ten times as many troops in the first 6 months of being in the Soviet Union than they did the entire war up to that point on the western front.
The German casualties were higher than the Soviet casualties in Bagration. Enemy at the Gates style movie tactics got left behind before Stalingrad.
The Germans considered the entire western front very much a less important secondary front.
Nice one Paul!!
Here's my version; two actually. One from a favorite movie and the other a recurring nightmare I've been having lately!!
Agree with you Andy, the size of the undertaking by the Germans was so great and the forces arrayed against them so numerous that the Western Allies should be forever grateful the Germans went east when they did. This is not to disagree with Chris' point about huge losses due to huge ineptitude, rather to say that you both make good cases.
As to 1918 on the Western Front..don't forget the Australian Corps that stopped the Michel German offensive flat. Of the five spring offensives, two were beaten back by the French, one by the US one by a mixture of the Allies and one by the Australian and Br forces. Dominion troops (Australian, Canadian, NZ, Sth African and Indian) made up a substantial proportion of the "British" front by this stage of the war as Britain struggled with manpower issues whilst the French appeared to have recovered from their horrible 1917 year and remained solid.
Or, alternatively, poorly researched and presented revisionist tosh that simply recycles myths (apparently its ok to accept myths and untruths if they support your own hypothesis) and misrepresents facts to draw an unsupportable conclusion. And as the author stated, on a subject he knew very little about. However, about on par for what passes as "historical"work these daysQuote:
Recommended Reading: _The Myth of the Great War_, John Mosier.
Must have missed that Vietnamese first strike :happy:Quote:
Nah -- the US mainly gets into wars because folks can't seem to figure out to Leave The US Alone. :)
It was my understanding (read from Panzer Blitz background booklet that came with the game,years ago) that it took 70% of Germany's war effort to fight the Russians. If you think about it North Africa was a back water front and so was Sicily and Italy. The Western Allies didn't really get "in" the European war in a major way until D-Day.
I say this with apologies to all who died fighting in these areas as a bullet or a bomb in a secondary theatre is just as lethal as the main front. Once the Allied air bombardment of Germany went after oil then their contribution to the cause had to be considered significant.
I agree about the boredom waiting for our toys. That is why I haven't visited much. I figured when the toys came out everyone would be all in to post scenarios, ship comparisons and everthing else that comes with a new game. The picture of the warehouse looking like the one in "Raiders" was nicely done. I hope Ft. Wayne's is somewhat smaller. I want toys by Christmas.
Sorry Tony, Santa is a little busy with some last minute *details*. He'll have to get back to you later.
Attachment 7946
Well Done!
I can't really fault Santa for that!
'Tis the season you know. :drinks:
Yes, I expect they're using the Cutter Classification system rather than LC. Makes things much, much harder to locate (please forgive the library speak).
I've only caught a few episodes, but it is a great show and very relevant for geeks and nerds (of course I count myself among that crowd, and now we even have our own magazine)
http://www.geekexchange.com/geek-magazine/
Getting back to who will get their package first, I would think that even the most pessimistic person would think that packages should start arriving by the end of the week.:pray::please: