Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

At least at first, the German Army in WWI was organized by districts in the country - so a unit would be full of Hessians, Westphalians, or Prussians. This extended to the extent that nearly all of one of the armies attacking France (the 6th) was made up of Bavarian troops and was led by the Crown Prince of Bavaria. Later in the war they might have ...


1

@Semaphore I agree with most of what you say, except one thing: unless they do so surreptitiously you can move defenders quicker across the "diameter" than the attackers can around the "circumference". It's what they mean by having interior lines. As to OP's idea of cattle, a general rule of food chains is that each step is only 10% efficient. Land that ...


0

They did not enclose corn fields and cattle pastures inside the walls of a castle. Such walls would be too long and need too many people to defend. Most of the food during a siege came from supplies. But supplies (of grain and other products like this) can be stored for very long time (for years). Many castles had wells. Some could have vegetable gardens. ...


14

Obviously this depends on how many defenders there were inside the castle. A castle garrisoned by a single person could probably live reasonably well off the chickens that might be in the bailey, for instance. He could even start a vegetable garden or some such. Realistically, no castle could hope to produce enough food to sustain a reasonably-sized ...


5

Simple answer, no. As you increase the size of your fortified enclosure to contain more land for cultivation, you obviously increase the length of the walls. The longer the walls are, the more people you require to defend them successfully. At the same time, those people actively defending the walls (in a siege) cannot be working the fields and tending the ...


3

Muscle cuirasses were rigid and rather uncomfortable; they also required custom fitting. So did lorica segmentata, but it was far more practical in battle. It's hard to say for sure whether the muscle cuirass was seriously used in battle by the Romans, but certainly it was exclusive to particular officers, such as a legate. They are very common in ...


1

After reading Anwar's answer I did some more research and can confirm parts of his answer and since @Congusbongus said Anwar's answer seems entirely speculative I would like to add to it. Why do the South Koreans stand the way they do? The ROK soldiers stand in a Taekwondo fighting stance to react to anything that may happen. In fact all ROK soldiers ...


12

Firstly, the South Korean soldiers are far more concerned about escalating possible situation. This is exemplified by how they are strict about making contact due to possible unwanted attention, hence the sunglasses on the SK soldiers. This is also exemplified by how the two side guards hug the corner with a firm stance forward as to expect a situation. ...


2

There's three questions here. Was Japan a threat? If not, could it be a threat again? Would Japan surrender without the atomic bomb or invasion? These are aspects of the larger question, "was the atomic bomb and invasion necessary"? That's a big question with lots of moving parts that's still debated by professional historians, so it's good to reduce ...


2

I think the possible answer could fall into how to tread the OP's word "capable of maintaining the war".... Thus I would like to analyze between the "material capability side" and the "spiritual capability side". Material Capability Side From this source Data comparison ( From 1941 to 1945 ) The number of soldiers ( including civilian related ...


2

Agnes Smedley, Communist spy and triple agent, was writing much of the "reporting" about the Communist army in the field. So, an independent observer rating of less than zero. She also helped the Communists by suckering Gen. Smedley to send them arms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_smedley.html


12

Japan was not really capable of "maintaining war" by mid-1945. The problem was that it was unwilling to "make peace" on anything like reasonable terms. If the Allies had wanted a stop to the fighting, one possibility might have been a "cease fire in place." That would leave the Allies in possession of the Philippines, and Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but it would ...


12

The answer to this question is yes, Japan was capable of maintaining the war at the time and likely would have done so. However, Japan was incapable of conducting meaningful offensive operations by then. So, in a sense they couldn't have hurt the U.S. but they would have hurt many others. U.S. General Curtis LeMay was responsible for implementing the ...


27

No. Japan had almost no capability to continue waging war. In fact, strangled by the American blockade, Japan was tottering on the brink of collapse. Experts both then and since believed that the combined pressure of the Soviet entry, the relentless blockade (and usually, the conventional aerial bombardment campaign) would have compelled Japan to surrender. ...


4

You can never be sure that a naval blockade will indeed lead to a national collapse. E.g., Britain did not surrender. Why do you think Japan would have? You must also remember the international situation: what if the SU would land in Japan and occupy it? By mid-1945 is was already a fact that, despite numerous agreements and promises of free elections, SU ...


10

I would guess that this fellow was stationed at the American consulate general (that is what AM CON GEN stands for) in Calcutta between 1961 and 1962. So to answer your precise question: Probably not much.


0

The main reason was that North have four times more white men than South (plus, almost 200 African-american soldiers served in northern army). With rate of volunteers about 50% (theoretical figure), northern army would be four times bigger than southern. So it is why South eventually needed 100% conscription, after the first year of war, to get Southern ...


2

Ann Hyland wrote two books on The Warhorse with different subtitles re the time periods covered: the first ancient and medieval, the second Renaissance and modern. She also wrote Equus on horses and mules in the Roman realms. First, wash out any images of knights on Shires and other big draft horses. Draft horses are for draft, are weak in the back for ...


4

Talked with my favorite professional historian (who is also a professional equestrienne). She pointed to the Tevis Cup as one source that might be instructive. Most of the Tevis competitors are Arabians, who have been bred to run fast and hard on minimal water & care. They shed heat well, but they can't carry the weight of someone in armor. (There is ...


2

I can answer only partially. The most powerful horse breed I regard to be the Ardennes horse. This breed was able to carry a fully outfitted knight into battle. The fastest war horse would be light cavalry as used in the Napoleonic and Krim wars. A charge's maximum speed was 20 km/h. It could be kept up only for a short period of time. Cavalry travel ...


-1

Been a while since I played it, but I don't think it allows you to address individual centuries. If it did, you'd have over a hundred of them to control, which would be unrealistic and probably boring to boot. Seems to me you're applying the tactic at the wrong scale. @ Semaphore I suspect he doesn't mean a single line of men, but units. @ Doug B I think ...


0

I don't have my references handy but my recollection is: The three-line, checkerboard formation (princeps, hastati, triarii) was used only in the Republican period, having been developed by Camillus and largely abandoned by the time of Marius. So depending on the time period you are gaming use of the three lines and checkerboard may or may not be ...


3

The frontline was still quite long: a maniple typically consisted of 120 soldiers arrayed in 3 ranks of 40 men when engaged in battle. each line had about 10 maniples and neighbouring maniples had a space of a maniple between them. That makes the frontline 19×40 = 760 men wide. Lets say that each man had a "personal space" of 1,5 meter (which is not ...


9

I believe it would be Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Denmark and Norway during the Second World War. German Fallschirmjägers were deployed in several small scale actions in both Denmark and Norway. The first airborne assault occurred at approximately 5 a.m. on 9 April 1940, when a German battalion were dropped on the Danish island of Masnedø, ...



Top 50 recent answers are included