Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 66679 times)

Offline Redbadd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #990 on: 27-11-2017, 23:11:30 »
A while back we had were talking about Putten and what happened there, i thought i'd just let it rest.
But now how would you guys compare the physical removing and or killing of civilians to the impersonal (fire) bombing of civilian areas.
What is the ultimate difference between, driving people into a church and burning it and burning the place all to gether, other than the cause it serves of course.

Online VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.203
  • Traction Wars Developer- Research Dept
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #991 on: 28-11-2017, 00:11:15 »
Intent.  At minimum, the Allied bomber raids were 'nominally' directed at the economy, while mass murderers like that are specifically directed and carried out with full knowledge of who you are killing and without intent for anything but mass murder and terrorism.  Not saying that carpet bombing by any nation in WW2 was good, but there are graduations.

That said, considering that the carpet bombing did very little to actually bring about economic destruction or the end of the war, it didn't even achieve the goals that were viewed to make civilian losses acceptable- a faster end to the war.

Offline Redbadd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #992 on: 30-11-2017, 13:11:45 »
But in the end they are both means to an end with the same result. And even then intent doesnt excuse one from responsibility.
If you look at what the British were doing at night under Harris, they were at best using the cities as kindling to set fire to factories. In a methodical studied way, building up the right conditions for a firstorm.
Then you cant possibly hide behind the intent of trying to hit an economical target.
The fact that the phrase  "to Hamburgerise" didnt catch on has probably to do with a slightly better feel for Propaganda with the allies.



Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.943
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #993 on: 30-11-2017, 22:11:44 »
Carpet bombing was a very murderous and unsuccessful way for the allies in which they tried to shorten the war.

I think a few things brought them to doing it:
1) Revenge. German Luftwaffe bombed civilian cities in the Blitzkrieg, sometimes as part of a strategic attack on a country (Rotterdam), sometimes as part of an attempt to make the civilian population break and surrender (London). The allies wanted to get back to them about that so they started bombing the Germans, partially in retaliation.
2) Powerlessness. Because they couldn't beat the Germans on the ground (or at least they thought they couldn't or it would cost way too much lives), they resorted to bombing because it was relatively "safe" while it made a lot of damage.
3) Cleanliness. Because of the distance between the bombercrews and their victims, the crews could carry on doing what they were doing. There are numerous accounts of American/British soldiers entering German towns and being shocked to see what their airforces had inflicted on those towns.

In my opinion the dumbest allied argument was to shorten the war. I mean, the Brits themselves had had the experience and they hadn't given in, so why would the Germans ever do so when treated the same way?

The biggest difference between carpet bombing and church burning is imo that the bombing is more technical and mechanized, and therefore less personal. Because the church burning is much more up close and personal it has more of a criminal feel over it. I'm not sure how much the bombercrews knew about the effects of their actions. I'm pretty sure the Germans knew what the effect of their actions would be.

Offline Redbadd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #994 on: 02-12-2017, 01:12:03 »
The British bombing force was geared towards strategic bombing from the start and Harris was no angel.
So revenge was a motive but without a doubt they would have carried on like they did, the Germans starting it was convenient.
The British leadership maybe/probably thought they could make  a better job of it, they still were an empire back then.
About the crews, you could say they were just men put there trying to survive, but still, if you drop thousands of kg of bombs in the dark over cities. You cant really blame them it was a war and all that. But you'd have to be Forrest Gump naieve to not think of what was happening on the ground, if one cared is a nother thing all together, because of the less personal nature.

The Americans in daylight had trouble hitting targets, they killed 800 people in Nijmegen destroying the inner city (Netherlands) attacking a railway station, wich they believed to be in Germany.

Even so, if the personal touch makes it feel more criminal, isnt the calculated technical scientific way the most criminal.





Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.851
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #995 on: 03-12-2017, 21:12:41 »
Carpet bombing was the only way to do it at night. Without radar, CEP was about five miles. Meaning that half the bombs fell within five miles of the intended target, not enough to hit anything else than a metropolitan area. With radar, the CEP at night or through cloud cover was about 1 mile, enough to hit a smaller town. Daytime "precision bombing" CEP was about 1000 feet, still a far cry from smart bombs but enough to hit an industrial target.

Strategic bombing in European front did succeed in two goals: destruction of Axis POL plants did wreck the mobility of their armies and eventually throttled their entire logistics (though only later after it was found out that factories were quickly rebuilt). Secondly, it tied over a million men, tens of thousands of guns, and an entire Luftflotte away from the frontlines.

In Europe, with stone and concrete buildings, established fire brigades, and ample bomb shelters, the direct destruction caused by carpet bombing was not that great though, and as said, factories were often quickly rebuilt. Against Japan, however, it did succeed; cities made of wood and paper, with insufficient firefighting capabilities or bomb shelters were wiped out with firebombs, dropped at low altitude for increased accuracy -  the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the two nuclear bombs combined and destroyed most of the city, civilian and industrial targets alike.

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #996 on: 03-04-2018, 20:04:57 »
Necro. But I'm sure I'll get some answers here.

Recently I'm quite interested in medieval history. Mostly you can find information about knights and the development of their arms and armour. What I'm more interested in though is the equipment of the simple infantry man which is harder to get information about.

So far I know that those usually were rather poorly equipped with mostly a gambeson and a helmet. But what about the arms they used? One source I found simply talks about polearms. I know that swords were hardly affordable for commoners until the arrival of the Falchion.

Then I found this graphic which only goes back to 1200:



Does that mean for the largest part of the medieval (until 1200) the only common melee weapon for commoners was the spear? Or what were the most common weapons? To make it easier to answer, let's restrict this to North Western Europe (France, England, Germany) 1000-1200.
« Last Edit: 03-04-2018, 20:04:28 by Butcher »
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.943
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #997 on: 03-04-2018, 20:04:11 »
Commoners (farmers) who were summoned to battle. brought everything which could be useful. So clubs were common, also long poles without anything metal on it (some sort of fighting stick) and even pitchforks when they became more widespread.

Not only were those things affordable (they were present in most households already), but the commoners knew how to handle them, so they didn't need any preparation for battle, unlike knights who were being trained.

So: blunt melee weapons mostly.

Offline Kasztelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #998 on: 03-04-2018, 22:04:48 »
Please, check scholagladiatoria channel on YT there is a fair amount of videos that may be of interest to you.

By common soldier I presume you mean a lower rank foot soldier like spearman/billman/archer/crossbowman who is levied for war campaign or is a semi-professional soldier, rather than a simple peasant levie?   

Most polearms were developed from agricultural tools so early improvised types of  such weapons were definetly very popular among peasant levies. The most widespread weapon among common soldiers since ancient history was spear whithout any question (basically the only exception being the use of Gladius as a main weapon in Roman armies) and from 1100 you would see more weapons like glaives and guisarmes. Polearm was always main weapon of medieval soldiers unless he was crossbowman, archer or paviser (if that's even a word :p). One thing to keep in mind is that more advanced polearms can't really be used effectively with a shield so they never really replaced plain and simple spear untill both were virtually replaced in western European armies by pikes in XVI century.

About sidearms, search for messer wich was a type of single-edged swords developed in Germany, besides that you would see axes, maces, daggers, later falchions, messers and swords.

Edit: I forgot about javelines  ;) in sime parts of Europe they were still a thing, particullary in Iberian peninsula, Eastern Europe, Wales and Ireland.

Edit2: I apologize for chaotic post there is a lot to say about the subject and speaking about medieval we are talking about staggering 1000 years of history. I would gladly share my notes with fellow enthusiast but unless you know Polish they will be of no use to you :-[

« Last Edit: 03-04-2018, 22:04:11 by Kasztelan »

Online Seth_Soldier

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.618
  • "Mort aux cons !"
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #999 on: 03-04-2018, 23:04:33 »
that's a very interresting subject !
I would advise you to learn about battles, this way you might get more information about the equipement.
I remember Flanders peasants/soldier were known to be skillful with them.

I remember reading some articles and having some presentation about those weapons.
At the time when the commoners were farmers (more or less your period), they used pitchforks and other agricultural tools.
But the most important details is that some of these weapons weren't to kill the knights but to bring it down and keep him on the ground (by example, some middle pitchfork dents could be bent) for ransom.
When the army became more professional, they improved them but they kept the designs (shown in your pattern)

Knifes, daggers,  maces etc ... are also interresting (and frightening) subjects to learn but those are for later wars

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #1000 on: 04-04-2018, 16:04:04 »
Thanks, I appreciate your answers.
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.