Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

This Thread Will Go Down in [History]

1242527293033

Posts

  • PeasPeas Registered User regular

    tylvh4k5gys0.gif
    sarukunSlacker71
  • Seems like a pretty unwieldy passport

    I guess you'd probably have a guy to carry it

  • IvarIvar Registered User regular
    Maybe you could hang it around your neck

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    I bet it'd be hanging from the front of their horse, right on the chest, like strapped on you know?

    Elvenshae
  • IvarIvar Registered User regular
    How big is that thing, anyway?

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Looks like that might not be real. Or, at least, some of the facts that are being presented as true about it are incorrect.



    The Met has a similar artifact in their collection, which lists its dimensions as having a 4.5 in diameter:

    beeyxyf64rjk.jpg

    cB557DedwrekkaFencingsaxElvenshaesarukunkimeDuke 2.0
  • PeasPeas Registered User regular
    It's actually a portable coaster for drinks

    tylvh4k5gys0.gif
    ElvenshaeKanaXaquinSlacker71
  • IronKnuckle's GhostIronKnuckle's Ghost Registered User regular
    The thing about the Great Molasses Flood that still confuses me is...why was there ever that much demand for molasses?

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    edited February 11
    The thing about the Great Molasses Flood that still confuses me is...why was there ever that much demand for molasses?

    Molasses is used to make brown sugar and alcohol, and used to be a much more commonly used sweetener, prior to widespread commercial availability of white sugar. The storage tank from the flood was specifically owned by United States Industrial Alcohol Company, who were using it to create ethanol (which I believe there were some shortage issues with after WW1, which is part of the reason they were doing such slapshod work).

    Straightzi on
    FencingsaxDouglasDangerElvenshaeJedocsarukunTynnanDuke 2.0ASimPersonSlacker71
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    I think because that was before corn syrup was as cheap to make as it is now

    also molasses has actual nutritional value so people used to use it as a dietary supplement

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    FencingsaxElvenshaeMunkus BeaverDuke 2.0Slacker71
  • IronKnuckle's GhostIronKnuckle's Ghost Registered User regular
    Of course. The answer is always alcohol.

  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Of course. The answer is always alcohol.

    Lemme tell yah 'bout the Triangle Trade.

    This was, essentially, a Colonial American money-making loop. You'd start off in Africa and pick up some slaves. You'd bring those slaves to the Caribbean / southern Colonies, where they'd be put to work in the fields growing and harvesting sugar cane, cotton, and tobacco. You'd take the products thereof and either run it up to New England (where the molasses / sugar was turned into rum) or over to Europe. There, you'd trade it for manufactured goods - textiles, furniture, alcohol, weapons, etc. Then you could take those down to Africa, and trade them for more slaves.

    Lather, rinse, repeat, and you'd find yourself a very, very rich person - and only at the cost of incalculable human suffering and the occasional lost ship.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
    StraightziSleepFencingsaxsarukunchrishallett83L Ron HowardMvrckDuke 2.0webguy20Slacker71
  • IronKnuckle's GhostIronKnuckle's Ghost Registered User regular
    History: bad, actually

    Captain Inertiachrishallett83DedwrekkaL Ron HowardGvzbgulMidniteDuke 2.0webguy20
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    lonelyahava
  • JuggernutJuggernut South CurrrrlinaRegistered User regular
    Man, I've been watching the Ken Burns Civil War documentary and I think it's often lost upon us just how much of a horrific moment in history that conflict was. Some of the eye witness descriptions of the battles make them out to be absolutely awesome displays of man power, carnage and obscene wastes of human life. I think a lot of our perceptions of the civil war are skewed in that people don't realize the scale and the intensity of these battles. Time has kind of dulled it in our eyes, I suppose. Made it seem less bloody.

    It's crazy to think men willingly walked head first into almost literal walls of lead and cannon fire even after watching whole regiments virtually disintegrate in a matter of seconds.

    Xaquin
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Man, I've been watching the Ken Burns Civil War documentary and I think it's often lost upon us just how much of a horrific moment in history that conflict was. Some of the eye witness descriptions of the battles make them out to be absolutely awesome displays of man power, carnage and obscene wastes of human life. I think a lot of our perceptions of the civil war are skewed in that people don't realize the scale and the intensity of these battles. Time has kind of dulled it in our eyes, I suppose. Made it seem less bloody.

    It's crazy to think men willingly walked head first into almost literal walls of lead and cannon fire even after watching whole regiments virtually disintegrate in a matter of seconds.

    The power of the sunk cost fallacy is amazing. They put in the time and effort to get there, might as well finish the job. I'm sure there were other reasons people accepted their fate and charged, but I'm positive that was a large percentage of the reasoning for most people.

    Fencingsax
  • DiarmuidDiarmuid Registered User regular
    Execution was usually the sentence for desertion.

    So, given the choice of dying bravely on the battlefield or dying as a criminal (and any potential consequences for their family), the majority of people took the "brave" route.


    Fencingsax
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Man, I've been watching the Ken Burns Civil War documentary and I think it's often lost upon us just how much of a horrific moment in history that conflict was. Some of the eye witness descriptions of the battles make them out to be absolutely awesome displays of man power, carnage and obscene wastes of human life. I think a lot of our perceptions of the civil war are skewed in that people don't realize the scale and the intensity of these battles. Time has kind of dulled it in our eyes, I suppose. Made it seem less bloody.

    It's crazy to think men willingly walked head first into almost literal walls of lead and cannon fire even after watching whole regiments virtually disintegrate in a matter of seconds.

    the civil war, like world war 1, was a war fought at the confluence of advancing technology and stagnating tactics made obsolete by that same technology, and the results in both cases are commanders who don't understand how the world has changed sending thousands into a meat grinder. i don't know that i've ever seen a movie depict the true, brutal, terrifying reality of that era of warfare. the patriot does a fair job of depicting colonial warfare but it seems to be the one thing about the civil war that just isn't really discussed at large.

    JuggernutFencingsaxDuke 2.0
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    I've seen the argument made the the commanders of WW1 actually did learn. I mean, you do see an advancement of tactics and strategy through out the war. Part of me thinks the Western front was just impossible. If you put some modern general in command, even with all the foresight, I'm not sure how you fight that war differently.

    Same with the Civil War. Like, yeah marching in large blocks seems dumb, but when you can only communicate via words, drums and horns it's important to keep men close. Also protects against calvary and bayonet charges.

    Oh, and fun fact, most regiments in the Civil War and some in WW1 were made up of volunteers from the same town and county. So if you ran, you didn't just run from the battle but from your brother in law, the local store keep, the town doctor. I bet avoiding humiliation and wanting to defend those you knew was a powerful motivator.

    valhalla130Dongs GalorecB557ElvenshaeFencingsaxGvzbgulchrishallett83Duke 2.0L Ron HowardMagellSlacker71
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Couple of things:

    1 - I've started becoming really interested in WW1 history stuff. Not so much from the 'military technology and history' side, but more in the geopolitical events, both before and during (the after stuff is basically covered by most WW2 stuff). Any good podcasts I could follow or someone could recommend that talk about it? I found The Great War's Youtube Channel (which I'm liking so far), and I've also listened to Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon (which was a very long listen). Any others folks would recommend?

    2 - Aside from the very long episode lengths, I didn't hate Dan Carlin's stuff. I'm considering listening to more of his podcast, but I've definitely read that he considers himself a Libertarian and was wondering if there were any good articles pointing out where that's infected his podcast (Hardcore History) in any excessive way. It's free to listen to so I'm not giving him money, but in general I do kinda like his style, and I find I can engage with it fairly well, again except for the episode length (multiple hours per episode). fakeedit: oh yeah and the way he says 'again' annoys me (uh-ghee'n).

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • IronKnuckle's GhostIronKnuckle's Ghost Registered User regular
    Talking about Ken Burns can only mean one thing.

    RMS OceanicSlacker71
  • Tox wrote: »
    Couple of things:

    1 - I've started becoming really interested in WW1 history stuff. Not so much from the 'military technology and history' side, but more in the geopolitical events, both before and during (the after stuff is basically covered by most WW2 stuff). Any good podcasts I could follow or someone could recommend that talk about it? I found The Great War's Youtube Channel (which I'm liking so far), and I've also listened to Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon (which was a very long listen). Any others folks would recommend?

    2 - Aside from the very long episode lengths, I didn't hate Dan Carlin's stuff. I'm considering listening to more of his podcast, but I've definitely read that he considers himself a Libertarian and was wondering if there were any good articles pointing out where that's infected his podcast (Hardcore History) in any excessive way. It's free to listen to so I'm not giving him money, but in general I do kinda like his style, and I find I can engage with it fairly well, again except for the episode length (multiple hours per episode). fakeedit: oh yeah and the way he says 'again' annoys me (uh-ghee'n).

    Dan Carlin has a politics podcast that I can't remember the name of nor reccomend, the history stuff is untainted so far as I can tell

    Snowbear
  • JayKaosJayKaos Registered User regular
    I've seen the argument made the the commanders of WW1 actually did learn. I mean, you do see an advancement of tactics and strategy through out the war. Part of me thinks the Western front was just impossible. If you put some modern general in command, even with all the foresight, I'm not sure how you fight that war differently.

    Same with the Civil War. Like, yeah marching in large blocks seems dumb, but when you can only communicate via words, drums and horns it's important to keep men close. Also protects against calvary and bayonet charges.

    Oh, and fun fact, most regiments in the Civil War and some in WW1 were made up of volunteers from the same town and county. So if you ran, you didn't just run from the battle but from your brother in law, the local store keep, the town doctor. I bet avoiding humiliation and wanting to defend those you knew was a powerful motivator.

    That bit about local volunteers always fascinates me, I think there was an anecdote from WWI when they were still doing it where a town a few miles from london lost every fighting age male in the course of a few hours because that battalion happened to be in the middle of a particularly brutal battle. They stopped grouping people together not long after that.

    Steam | SW-0844-0908-6004 and my Switch code
    cB557Fencingsax
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    JayKaos wrote: »
    I've seen the argument made the the commanders of WW1 actually did learn. I mean, you do see an advancement of tactics and strategy through out the war. Part of me thinks the Western front was just impossible. If you put some modern general in command, even with all the foresight, I'm not sure how you fight that war differently.

    Same with the Civil War. Like, yeah marching in large blocks seems dumb, but when you can only communicate via words, drums and horns it's important to keep men close. Also protects against calvary and bayonet charges.

    Oh, and fun fact, most regiments in the Civil War and some in WW1 were made up of volunteers from the same town and county. So if you ran, you didn't just run from the battle but from your brother in law, the local store keep, the town doctor. I bet avoiding humiliation and wanting to defend those you knew was a powerful motivator.

    That bit about local volunteers always fascinates me, I think there was an anecdote from WWI when they were still doing it where a town a few miles from london lost every fighting age male in the course of a few hours because that battalion happened to be in the middle of a particularly brutal battle. They stopped grouping people together not long after that.

    That happened more than once.


    Rather more than once, in fact.

    cB557Brovid HasselsmofDouglasDangerToxFencingsaxtynicchrishallett83IronKnuckle's GhostNeveronDedwrekkaDuke 2.0L Ron HowardSkeithSlacker71
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    I don't think you could get a major studio to make a Civil War movie in the style of, say, Saving Private Ryan, that sort of gritty ground-level look at war and how ugly and senseless it can be. Like, you'd never get away with showing a regiment of dudes getting hit with canister. I don't even know that I'd want to see it in a movie, to be honest.

  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited February 16
    I've seen the argument made the the commanders of WW1 actually did learn. I mean, you do see an advancement of tactics and strategy through out the war. Part of me thinks the Western front was just impossible. If you put some modern general in command, even with all the foresight, I'm not sure how you fight that war differently.

    Same with the Civil War. Like, yeah marching in large blocks seems dumb, but when you can only communicate via words, drums and horns it's important to keep men close. Also protects against calvary and bayonet charges.

    Oh, and fun fact, most regiments in the Civil War and some in WW1 were made up of volunteers from the same town and county. So if you ran, you didn't just run from the battle but from your brother in law, the local store keep, the town doctor. I bet avoiding humiliation and wanting to defend those you knew was a powerful motivator.

    Commanders in WW1 absolutely learned from their mistakes. They learned unevenly, in some cases too slowly, in some cases they learned the wrong lesson, but they learned. There are many reasons this learning did not change the trench warfare situation, nor led to a decisive victory before Fall 1918.

    First, trench warfare was literally the only effective option on the western front. Both armies had to resort to it as a defensive tactic. Second, there was no alternative to frontal attacks on the enemy trenches. You physically cannot not outflank the enemy line if the line extends from the English Channel to the Swiss border. If you are the French, you cannot simply choose not to attack, because the Germans are occupying a large part of your country, and holding back while the Germans destroy your Russian ally means that you are basically conceding defeat.

    People largely consider the great mass casualty offensives of 1915-1917 a stupid waste, and arguably some of them should not have been launched, but almost all of them incorporated some significant tactical or technological innovation based on lessons learned. The problem was both sides learned lessons, and so for a long time were able to maintain a tenuous balance while the corpses piled up.

    There were a lot of stupid ideas before the war began, most notably on the French side (which, it should be noted, was only a very recent and transitory obsession with shock tactics that was already being toned down in French doctrine in 1914), but most of these did not last very long.

    For example, Joseph Joffre, the French commander in 1914, had been (along with Ferdinand Foch) a major proponent of bayonet attacks in close order. He thought artillery only needed to be used for direct fire, so the French divisional artillery was not capable of indirect fire and did not fire preparatory barrages. His doctrine, exemplified by the initial offensives into Lorraine in Plan XVII, was responsible for horrific casualties and disastrous defeats in the first two weeks of the war.

    In the third week, Joffre and Foch privately admitted that their doctrine was a failure. Joffre then began the Great Retreat, pulling back his forces towards Paris. He aborted Plan XVII, redeploying his armies from Lorraine to the center. At the start of the fifth week, this maneuver culminated in a decisive Allied victory at the First Battle of the Marne.

    If Joffre and Foch had not been able to admit they had been terribly wrong, and had not been able to learn lessons very quickly, France would have lost the war. Likewise, if General von Falkenhayn had not learned his lessons, the Germans would not have gone over to the defensive in 1915, and probably have lost the war sooner. Brusilov would not have shattered the Austrians in 1916 without innovative assault tactics. Without learning and adapting, Haig would not have turned the Somme into the "muddy field grave of the German Army," nor would Ludendorff have come so close to Paris in 1918 - and the Allies would not have kept him out of Paris in the Second Battle of the Marne.

    tl;dr everyone made mistakes, some of them made very stupid mistakes, but most of them were aware that this was a new type of war and they did their best to adapt to an alien environment.

    e: "it remains for you to forget what you have learned, and for me to do the opposite of what I have taught you" - Ferdinand Foch to his staff officers, Fall 1914
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Man, I've been watching the Ken Burns Civil War documentary and I think it's often lost upon us just how much of a horrific moment in history that conflict was. Some of the eye witness descriptions of the battles make them out to be absolutely awesome displays of man power, carnage and obscene wastes of human life. I think a lot of our perceptions of the civil war are skewed in that people don't realize the scale and the intensity of these battles. Time has kind of dulled it in our eyes, I suppose. Made it seem less bloody.

    It's crazy to think men willingly walked head first into almost literal walls of lead and cannon fire even after watching whole regiments virtually disintegrate in a matter of seconds.

    While there certainly were many extremely bloody charges in the American Civil War, European military observers actually reported that the Americans were unusually unwilling to advance their units into enemy fire. The American armies tended to spend a very long time shooting at each other, and not nearly as much time advancing. This is often characterized as the root of the US Army's doctrinal tendency to resort to firepower in and effort to preserve manpower.

    Dongs Galore on
    Gvzbgulchrishallett83JayKaosElvenshaecB557MvrckDuke 2.0L Ron HowardIronKnuckle's GhostSlacker71Kana
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Another thing to put the Civil War into perspective is if you line in an older town like mine, you can look at the old census data. The population for mine didn't reach pre civil war levels again until shortly after World War II

    valhalla130
  • JuggernutJuggernut South CurrrrlinaRegistered User regular
    Kind of in the tone of Joffre and the first weeks of WW1 does anybody know of any resources devoted to the Battle of the Frontiers? Something that goes into depth about that whole debacle, specifically the fighting on the 22nd of August in and around Rossignol?

    I'm trying to research it for a thing but so far I've found very sparse amounts of information considering it was basically the single bloodiest day of the War. I think I've come across one book that's entirely in French and I can't actually find for sale anywhere.

    Duke 2.0
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Kind of in the tone of Joffre and the first weeks of WW1 does anybody know of any resources devoted to the Battle of the Frontiers? Something that goes into depth about that whole debacle, specifically the fighting on the 22nd of August in and around Rossignol?

    I'm trying to research it for a thing but so far I've found very sparse amounts of information considering it was basically the single bloodiest day of the War. I think I've come across one book that's entirely in French and I can't actually find for sale anywhere.

    I'll look through my old bibliographies and see if I can find a title for you. I could swear I read one that went into detail about the Frontiers, although that period wasn't what I was researching at the time.

    Juggernut
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    Also, the French in general were just super unfortunate with their doctrinal choices in every industrial war they fought, even though they were trying to learn the lessons of their last war.

    In 1871 they went into the Franco-Prussian War with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and the destruction of enemy infantry by weight of fire. The Prussians used a maneuver doctrine and placed more emphasis on shock. In the event, the French doctrine failed catastrophically, as the Prussians outmaneuvered their positions and annihilated the French armies.

    In 1914 they went into WW1 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack, to the extent of stripping most of the border forts of artillery in order to arm their field divisions. The Germans placed more emphasis on fire and defense (albeit not too much). The French doctrine failed catastrophically, as German fire decimated the attacking French Armies.

    In 1939, they went into WW2 with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and firepower. The Germans emphasized maneuver. The French doctrine failed catastrophically.

    In 1980, they would have gone into WW3 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack...

  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    edited February 16
    I'd actually argue that in 1939 the French doctrine wasn't bad they just botched it horrendously. "Oh yes let's not put almost any defense on the lynchpin of our whole defensive line." "Oh let's continue moving troops into belgium and away from the Ardennes after we've gotten reports there's been a major attack there."

    Defensive fortifications were still extremely useful in WWII. And France, even with the UK as support, did not realistically have the manpower to conduct serious offensive operations against a much more populous fully mobilized Germany. So their defensive plan was the smart move based on their situation. It fell apart for three reasons.

    1. Belgium dropped their alliance with France in the mid 1930s which made the planned joint Belgian-French defensive line just totally fall apart and there was not enough time to get it established when war finally did break out.
    2. France for some could not conceive of someone attacking through the Ardennes forests. Which might be forgivable except for the fact that it was literally the center of the joint defensive line of France and Belgium and the most direct way past the Maginot... so they really out to have taken precautions even if they did think the risk was minimal.
    3. France, and the UK, reacted extremely poorly on a tactical level when Germany finally finished up in Poland and pushed into France and the low counties. Even the Germans did not expect such a quick victory, and the blame really does rest on how flatfooted and uncoordinated the Allies were.

    Gundi on
    cB557Dongs GaloreFencingsaxL Ron Howard
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited February 16
    All of that is true, but the French doctrine itself was fundamentally flawed in 1940 in many ways. (the Maginot Line itself was perfectly sensible, it was the army's tactics and techniques that were inadequate)That said, they could still have averted utter disaster if their planning and execution had been a little better, like they did in August 1914.

    One of the main unforced errors that made the catastrophe of June 1940 possible was that General Gamelin actually did try to learn from the Fall of Poland and adapt his defense plan, but he learned the wrong lessons. He believed that Poland showed air power (namely the Stuka) could paralyze the rear lines. French intelligence had chronically overestimated the Luftwaffe's size for years, so he assumed the Germans would have total air supremacy and that his operational reserves would be unable to reach the front lines when the attack came.

    So Gamelin decided the only chance of winning the battle was to deploy the entire force forward, at their best estimate of the Germans' focal point, holding barely anything in reserve. He convinced himself this was France's only chance. In the event, the Germans outmaneuvered his Army, and the inefficient French command system was incapable of redeploying to block their advance.

    Dongs Galore on
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    One of my favorite WW1 anecdotes is that the first and last British battle deaths are buried in the same cemetery in Belgium. Their graves face each other.

    The first man was a private. He was shot on patrol on the outskirts of Mons on August 21 1914.

    The second man was also a private. He was shot on patrol on the outskirts of Mons on November 11 1918.

    It took them more than 4 years just to get back to where they started.
    the second man literally took 4 years to get back where he started. He fought in the Battle of Mons in August 1914 and served throughout the war.

    cB557L Ron HowardkimeSlacker71
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Either way I'd be dead but I'd be pissed to be the last damn guy to die in WWI when I'd been in the thing the whole time.

    Kayne Red RobefurlionFencingsaxBrovid Hasselsmofchrishallett83Duke 2.0V1mToxbalerbowerhonoveresarukunL Ron HowardMvrckkimeSkeithLaOsVegemyteSlacker71
  • JedocJedoc Take a look. It's in a book. It was always in a book, you fool.Registered User regular
    It's actually an interesting story! Sergeant Henry Gunther, the last fatality of WWI, died one minute before the armistice came into effect, and at least an hour after he'd received news that the war was ending. He was drafted from a family of German descent who faced a fair bit of discrimination from people who thought they were sympathizers, and had recently been busted to private based on a letter he wrote to a friend disparaging life in the armed forces.

    He charged a machine gun nest with a fixed bayonet, and witnesses reported that the Germans were trying to yell at him that the war was over while firing shots over his head right up until they killed him.

    There have been arguments ever since whether he was following a bad order from his officers or just trying to prove something about himself, but either way it's a goddamn tragedy among millions.

    GDdCWMm.jpg
    Straightzichrishallett83cB557sarukunL Ron HowardMvrckkimeVegemyteSlacker71
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    Also, the French in general were just super unfortunate with their doctrinal choices in every industrial war they fought, even though they were trying to learn the lessons of their last war.

    In 1871 they went into the Franco-Prussian War with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and the destruction of enemy infantry by weight of fire. The Prussians used a maneuver doctrine and placed more emphasis on shock. In the event, the French doctrine failed catastrophically, as the Prussians outmaneuvered their positions and annihilated the French armies.

    In 1914 they went into WW1 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack, to the extent of stripping most of the border forts of artillery in order to arm their field divisions. The Germans placed more emphasis on fire and defense (albeit not too much). The French doctrine failed catastrophically, as German fire decimated the attacking French Armies.

    In 1939, they went into WW2 with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and firepower. The Germans emphasized maneuver. The French doctrine failed catastrophically.

    In 1980, they would have gone into WW3 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack...

    Do you think the French Doctrine of the Franco-Prussian War was flawed, or just their morale and leadership? Like, if the war lasted longer would maneuver warfare have fallen out of favor? Or was it just the German doctrine was correct for that narrow period of fast shooting rifles and cannon but no beyond line of sight artillery or machine guns?
    Gundi wrote: »
    I'd actually argue that in 1939 the French doctrine wasn't bad they just botched it horrendously. "Oh yes let's not put almost any defense on the lynchpin of our whole defensive line." "Oh let's continue moving troops into belgium and away from the Ardennes after we've gotten reports there's been a major attack there."

    Defensive fortifications were still extremely useful in WWII. And France, even with the UK as support, did not realistically have the manpower to conduct serious offensive operations against a much more populous fully mobilized Germany. So their defensive plan was the smart move based on their situation. It fell apart for three reasons.

    1. Belgium dropped their alliance with France in the mid 1930s which made the planned joint Belgian-French defensive line just totally fall apart and there was not enough time to get it established when war finally did break out.
    2. France for some could not conceive of someone attacking through the Ardennes forests. Which might be forgivable except for the fact that it was literally the center of the joint defensive line of France and Belgium and the most direct way past the Maginot... so they really out to have taken precautions even if they did think the risk was minimal.
    3. France, and the UK, reacted extremely poorly on a tactical level when Germany finally finished up in Poland and pushed into France and the low counties. Even the Germans did not expect such a quick victory, and the blame really does rest on how flatfooted and uncoordinated the Allies were.

    I love French Tanks. Stuff like the Char B1 bis and Somua 35 just look great to me. On paper they are not bad tanks, but they lacked in two major areas.

    1. They had a two man turret, meaning the commander had to load.
    2. They lack radio

    To me, most of the French equipment was focused on fighting WW1-Part 2. For things like infantry small arms, that's okay. However, their doctrine and armored fighting vehicles were not up to the challenge of responding to fast moving thrusts. I think if the French got to fight the war they planned for they would of done quite well. Yet, you can't always choose your battles.

  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    Also, the French in general were just super unfortunate with their doctrinal choices in every industrial war they fought, even though they were trying to learn the lessons of their last war.

    In 1871 they went into the Franco-Prussian War with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and the destruction of enemy infantry by weight of fire. The Prussians used a maneuver doctrine and placed more emphasis on shock. In the event, the French doctrine failed catastrophically, as the Prussians outmaneuvered their positions and annihilated the French armies.

    In 1914 they went into WW1 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack, to the extent of stripping most of the border forts of artillery in order to arm their field divisions. The Germans placed more emphasis on fire and defense (albeit not too much). The French doctrine failed catastrophically, as German fire decimated the attacking French Armies.

    In 1939, they went into WW2 with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and firepower. The Germans emphasized maneuver. The French doctrine failed catastrophically.

    In 1980, they would have gone into WW3 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack...

    Do you think the French Doctrine of the Franco-Prussian War was flawed, or just their morale and leadership? Like, if the war lasted longer would maneuver warfare have fallen out of favor? Or was it just the German doctrine was correct for that narrow period of fast shooting rifles and cannon but no beyond line of sight artillery or machine guns?

    The mitrailleuse would've likely been effective had it been used like a machine gun

    Dongs Galore
  • IvarIvar Registered User regular
    Platy wrote: »
    Also, the French in general were just super unfortunate with their doctrinal choices in every industrial war they fought, even though they were trying to learn the lessons of their last war.

    In 1871 they went into the Franco-Prussian War with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and the destruction of enemy infantry by weight of fire. The Prussians used a maneuver doctrine and placed more emphasis on shock. In the event, the French doctrine failed catastrophically, as the Prussians outmaneuvered their positions and annihilated the French armies.

    In 1914 they went into WW1 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack, to the extent of stripping most of the border forts of artillery in order to arm their field divisions. The Germans placed more emphasis on fire and defense (albeit not too much). The French doctrine failed catastrophically, as German fire decimated the attacking French Armies.

    In 1939, they went into WW2 with a doctrine that emphasized strongpoint defense and firepower. The Germans emphasized maneuver. The French doctrine failed catastrophically.

    In 1980, they would have gone into WW3 with a doctrine that emphasized maneuver and attack...

    Do you think the French Doctrine of the Franco-Prussian War was flawed, or just their morale and leadership? Like, if the war lasted longer would maneuver warfare have fallen out of favor? Or was it just the German doctrine was correct for that narrow period of fast shooting rifles and cannon but no beyond line of sight artillery or machine guns?

    The mitrailleuse would've likely been effective had it been used like a machine gun

    How was it used?

  • Like this apparently
    The French Army used the mitrailleuse as an artillery weapon, rather than an infantry support weapon—a role later filled by the machine gun. As a matter of fact, the official name of the Reffye mitrailleuse in the French Army was "le Canon à Balles", a designation that translates literally as: "cannon that fires bullets":

    'Comparing the fire of the Mitrailleuse to that of the rifle is misunderstanding the role of the Mitrailleuse. This weapon must begin to fire with effectiveness only at ranges where the rifle no longer carries. It must, for the great ranges of 1000 to 2500 metres compensate the insufficiency of grapeshot.'

    — Auguste Verchère de Reffye.

Sign In or Register to comment.