Tag Info

New answers tagged

7

You are referring to the Schwarze Reiters (i.e. black riders), named after the dark armour they wore. This was a type of cavalry that appeared in Germany after the decline of the medieval lancers, but later became a generic name (usually shortened to just reiters) for German cavalry mercenaries. Around the mid-16th century, advancements in firearms as well ...


1

When following both German (eastern front) and Soviet official loss figures 22th June 1941 to 31 Decemberg 1944 we will get these figures: Total German losses: 5 790 459 killed, wounded, missing Total Soviet losses: 26 579 242 killed, wounded, missing Loss rate: 1:4,59 (nobody knows what were German loss figures during last four months of 1945, official ...


1

@Jack Smith Which great wars would those be? If they took place prior to 1871 the Swedes can't have sided with Germany, as it didn't exist. What's more the separate states (Bavaria, Prussia...) would frequently be on opposite sides.


0

Sweden was neutral while doing business with Germany, exactly the same as Switzerland. Sweden and Switzerland were basically allies of Germany with the good sense not to join a losing fight. In Europe's many previous 'great wars' Sweden always aligned with Germany. Britain on the other hand started 2 world wars it couldn't win with the hope that America ...


1

It was because there was no STRATEGIC reason for Hitler to attack Sweden. Hitler goal is to colonize Slavic lands in eastern Europe, especially Poland and Russia. He attacked Norway to keep the Allies from opening a second font in the north. He attacked Belgium because it was on the way to France. He attacked France because France didn't want let him attack ...


1

Sweden cooperated with Germany in World War II. (Although the Allies did manage to "launch" Eric Ericcson, a Swedish-American spy, from Sweden, in large part because Germans felt that Sweden was a potential "safe haven" for German "flight capital" by high-ranking Nazis.) My Swedish friends tell me that Sweden allowed Germany overflights to Norway during the ...


3

It is somewhat important to realize that even Hitler was not so mad as to actually consider invading all of Europe, and getting away with it. He had to consider cost vs. benefit. Hitler's target -- "the plan", as early as 1925 -- was Russia. That's where his ideological enemy was: Bolshevism. That's where his whole screwed "Lebensraum" vision played out: ...


2

Why would it seem like a much better strategic move than invading Russia? They are extremely different propositions, it seems to me. It proved true that Sweden did not need to be invaded. It continued to supply trade and needed resources (mainly iron), and not invading it had advantages such as having a neutral country nearby, which is useful for other ...


6

Sweden like Switzerland was a neutral country and not involved in the conflict. Attacking Sweden would have tied up military resources and it wasn't really necessary since the resources Germany needed from Sweden could be obtained by trade or diplomacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II for more information. There was also an ...


1

Northern Ireland Prime Minister Lord Craigavon had asked Churchill in 1940 to invade the Republic of Ireland at the height of the war, as he felt that Valera was coming under the influence of Hitler. Churchill did not move at that time but later prepared detailed plans for an invasion of southern Ireland. Field Marshal Montgomery stated in his ...


35

Sweden was a vital source of iron ores to Germany, an important strategic resource for her war effort. Because the allies controlled the seas, Scandinavia was Germany's main source of good quality iron. Attacking Sweden would have disrupted the supply for no real gain. Production of high-grade steel suitable for armour plate and gun barrels depended ...


17

For the same reason he did not invade Switzerland, the cost-benefit ratio was not good. Also, you should realize that the Germans were not just a bunch of frenzied madmen attacking everybody. They were happy to co-exist with other countries that were friendly, such as Sweden. After the war started, many countries, including the United States, Britain and ...


3

A very thought provoking Question; from checking on various sources on the internet the bayonet was used about 10 to 20 years before 1700. The earliest being plug bayonets, which had serious drawbacks, primary of which was that they were difficult to extract from the gun after use. The ring bayonet came in to use about 1700, but of a simple type that was not ...


2

I was given several pieces of information in another answer that allowed me to construct my own. First, I was reminded that the typical division of 10,000 to 12,000 men has about 2,000 artillerymen. At the rate of 20 men per gun, that is about 100 guns per division. It was also helpful to learn that "most field artillery is 4-, 5- and 6-inch guns," because ...


4

The land-based regiments would have a lot more firepower. Typically you might be talking several divisions having perhaps 2000+ guns combined. Note however these are relatively small caliber compared to naval guns. Most field artillery is 4-, 5- and 6-inch guns, whereas a battleship would have 8-10 15" guns. The critical question in a fight like this is not ...


3

Wikipedia does manage sometimes to serve up the silliest nonsense. As others have noted, Salem is in the English Bible. It is a transcription of one of the Hebrew names for Jerusalem. “Peter” is a Christian name (St Peter in the New Testament). No Muslim would ever be called “Peter Salem”: it is 100% Christian name. بطرس سالم is in fact a very typical Arab ...


4

Salem Poor and Peter Salem were both freed slaves born in Massachusetts (don't be so surprised, New England prohibitions against slavery weren't always followed), which explains the Salem in their names more than an Islamic background. The name Salem has a strong symbolic significance in colonial Massachusetts: In recognition of this peaceful transition ...


4

The fort is depicted on this engraving: (found on this page). The engraving was done by an actual witness of the events and the details are probably accurate. The defences would then consist in a wooden palisade, with two entrances. A modern rendering based on that engraving looks like this: So no ditch, tower, stone or any other similar construction. ...



Top 50 recent answers are included