If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   There are people that study history. Then there's this guy   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 148
    More: Amusing, back garden, British troops, WWI  
•       •       •

23362 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 03:01:59 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

 
The whole thing started because some guy, Archie Duke, got hungry and shot an ostrich.  Kind of hard to get interested in it with that kind of backstory. 
 
2012-11-02 03:06:10 PM

bugcrusher: I salute this this guy for drawing attention to the nasty clusterfark that this war was, illustrating with real trenches the cold and muddy conditions on the continent that those soldiers lived and died in. These were no all-volunteer armies, these were conscripted kids in their early 20's being ordered about by paper officers whose war college lessons and techniques were from the 19th century. WWI was the last to really employ cavalry, the first to use mechanization, and it changed the face of Europe, creating what we have today.


An increasingly unpayable debt based economy?
 
2012-11-02 03:06:38 PM

UNC_Samurai: The First World War tactically is different from the American Civil War for four reasons - three technological and one socio-geographical.

The first and most obvious is the introduction of self-contained ammunition. Load a clip with 5 bullets, fire until expended, then load a new one. Whereas a veteran Federal or Confederate regiment could put up a sustained volley of 3 rounds a minute for about ten minutes (assuming the unit was completely stationary) before needing more ammunition. A British or German Great War regiment can fire approximately 15 rounds per minute - and they can advance while firing.

The second, and also obvious, innovation is the machine gun. There is no reliable way for infantry in 1914-1918 to deal with a machine gun. You have to rely on accurate artillery (and that requires some means of communication, which still isn't available tactically) or bypass the strongpoint.

The third and often overlooked innovation was the introduction of reliable aerial reconnaissance. It becomes far easier for armies to locate an opposing force with machines that are only a decade away from the first powered flight. All these things feed into the fourth and most important difference:


These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.
 
2012-11-02 03:11:28 PM

John Hopoate: What a WWI Tommy may look like



/hot like a cappucino


He has a cunning plan.

Goodbyeeee
 
2012-11-02 03:15:15 PM

This text is now purple: UNC_Samurai: The First World War tactically is different from the American Civil War for four reasons - three technological and one socio-geographical.

The first and most obvious is the introduction of self-contained ammunition. Load a clip with 5 bullets, fire until expended, then load a new one. Whereas a veteran Federal or Confederate regiment could put up a sustained volley of 3 rounds a minute for about ten minutes (assuming the unit was completely stationary) before needing more ammunition. A British or German Great War regiment can fire approximately 15 rounds per minute - and they can advance while firing.

The second, and also obvious, innovation is the machine gun. There is no reliable way for infantry in 1914-1918 to deal with a machine gun. You have to rely on accurate artillery (and that requires some means of communication, which still isn't available tactically) or bypass the strongpoint.

The third and often overlooked innovation was the introduction of reliable aerial reconnaissance. It becomes far easier for armies to locate an opposing force with machines that are only a decade away from the first powered flight. All these things feed into the fourth and most important difference:

These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.


The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.
 
2012-11-02 03:17:49 PM

Stinger: Well it's far enough into the thread that a) I haven't checked to see if anyone else posted this already and b) no one will read it anyway, but...
This is hilariously obligatory. How did the war start?


I tried to find the scene where they show the relief map of the land Blackadder and Baldrick were captured fighting to retake and the scale is.... one. That was a nice commentary on how futile WWI must have felt.

/it's perfectly detailed
//look, there's a little worm
 
2012-11-02 03:18:23 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk
I'd frolic the hell out of that place.
 
2012-11-02 03:18:27 PM
What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.
 
2012-11-02 03:18:59 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: If I did that here in Chicago i would need a permit


Depends whether you declare war.
 
2012-11-02 03:23:48 PM
Studying history is lame. I study the future.
 
2012-11-02 03:24:20 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


YOUR POST IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME.
 
2012-11-02 03:25:49 PM

Modguy: The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.

 
Also, WWI pitted two opposing forces with the exact same technolgy available to them, as well having them essentially matched in terms of strength, and strategies.  There was nothing available in the offensive arsenal that could not be repelled by what was available in the defensive arsenal, and there was nothing so definitely effective defensively that it wiped out the capability to continue to launch offensive attacks.  And this held true for both sides. 
 
2012-11-02 03:26:08 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


That's a bold statement.
 
2012-11-02 03:29:04 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: What's sad is that this guy is doing more to help people experience history in 24 hours in his back yard than the History channel does all year.


Hey, you never know what is gonna walk in that door...
 
2012-11-02 03:34:31 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


So is pretty much any museum (to people who don't care about whatever subjects are explored, that is).

The enormous dugout has been painstakingly recreated by an ex-history teacher in his back garden in Surrey, and the dedicated 55-year-old even spent 24 hours living in its confines with a team of volunteers as part of his efforts to experience life as a WWI soldier.

Andrew Robertshaw and 30 helpers spent a month shifting around 200 tonnes of earth to build the enormous three-room trench, which he hopes will teach people more about the horrific living conditions endured by British troops during the Great War.
 
2012-11-02 03:50:07 PM

Modguy: These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.

The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.


The Industrial Revolution occurred from 1750-1850. ACW occurred from 1861-1865. It was an industrial-era war.

\That was why Sherman occupied himself by tearing up railroad tracks.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:24 PM
Meth lab.
 
2012-11-02 03:54:38 PM

This text is now purple: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because a larger war occurred 18 years later, over the same issues. Except that war actually resolved things.


Some of them, not all. Eastern Europe is still a mess, and don't let's look at the Middle East...
 
2012-11-02 03:54:50 PM

DickDarlington: Big Merl: He must not have a HOA...

apart from the occasional gated community HOA's don't exist in the UK


....yet


They have 'elf & safety. Some humourless weaselly little inspector will come around with a note from "the council" telling him the trenches are a hazard.
 
2012-11-02 03:58:26 PM

Honest Bender: Harry Freakstorm: The last WW I movie I didn't see, a biplane flew through an exploding dirigible.

I don't remember anything about the last movie I didn't see...


Maybe you should pay more attention when you're not watching.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:27 PM

Great_Milenko: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Two reasons:

1) it was a horrible, horrible war. Death and destruction on a massive scale with little reward in the eventual "victory"

2) The US didn't dominate it.


3) Because COD never made a FPS based on WWI
 
2012-11-02 04:23:47 PM

This text is now purple: Modguy: These all existed in the Civil War. Hell, George Custer alone used repeating rifles (Spencer, 20 shots/min) and aerial reconnaissance (scouted via hot-air balloon).

The Gatling and Agar guns were used in the Civil War. None of them frequently, or well, but they existed. They were dealt with in the same ways, too -- by artillery or by sniper.

The difference, how ever, was availability. You really don't see the proliferation needed to accurately extrapolate the effects of widespread use until you hit the Industrial Revolution and Mass Production.

The Industrial Revolution occurred from 1750-1850. ACW occurred from 1861-1865. It was an industrial-era war.

\That was why Sherman occupied himself by tearing up railroad tracks.


The difference is that it wasn't until the Bessemer process in the advent of the Second Industrial Revolution that the changes in how war was fought did things get kicked into overdrive. When you can produce steel cheaply, and reliably, you're more able to mass produce significant amounts of things like Artillary, Heavy Industries, and the like. The Civil War had a lot of things that was a foreshadowing of WW1 would be like, especially near the end, but it was missing quite a few of the fudamental things that truly define modern war.
 
2012-11-02 04:31:10 PM

FizixJunkee: How can that guy afford a detached house and all that land in Surrey? That' s gotta be worth a fortune.

\moving to England
\\where homes are even more expensive than in SoCal
\\\good-bye Los Angeles, CA
\\\\hello, Guildford, Surrey!


Home of Top Gear, I believe. It might be fun to get some tickets to a show if you're a car person.
 
2012-11-02 04:32:45 PM
Impressive.

I guess he'll never be condemned to repeat history.
 
2012-11-02 04:35:05 PM

whidbey: Impressive.

I guess he'll never be condemned to repeat history.


Until the Alzheimer's kicks in, and he constructs a massive trench network every month.
 
2012-11-02 05:03:25 PM

ciberido: EZ Writer: There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?


Not always (URL: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx) the way you think, apparently.


Wow, I'm unimpressed by Grammar Girl's knowledge. I was taught in school that "that" swings both ways, i.e., it was acceptable to use with both people and non-people. It's "which" that you must never use with people.
 
2012-11-02 05:14:02 PM
Somme people just don't know what to do with themselves. And if anything, it looks a little o Verdun.
 
2012-11-02 05:15:56 PM

Pawprint: ciberido: EZ Writer: There are people that who study history.

/Pronouns. How do they work?


Not always (URL: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-that.aspx) the way you think, apparently.

Wow, I'm unimpressed by Grammar Girl's knowledge. I was taught in school that "that" swings both ways, i.e., it was acceptable to use with both people and non-people. It's "which" that you must never use with people.


Which puts on the lotion or which gets the hose. You're right, doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2012-11-02 05:25:50 PM
What a terrible farking war.
 
2012-11-02 05:28:04 PM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


It got overshadowed by the sequel, since it was bigger in every way, and had a more satisfying ending (Hitler eating a bullet to avoid capture by the Russians and Hiroshima going up in a mushroom cloud were a lot more appealing to the audiences than everybody basically getting tired of it and sitting down to just call the whole thing off).

The Nazis made really good villains. Bent on world conquest, genocidal, really snappy uniforms, an iconic logo, obsession with advanced technology and occult lore. There is a reason they are a go-to movie villain. Who in World War I was anything approaching that telegenic?
 
2012-11-02 05:29:23 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


You're overlooking what has proven to be the biggest clusterfark of all resulting from WWI: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation (thanks mainly to the British and French) of the modern patchwork of Middle Eastern states. The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.
 
2012-11-02 05:38:48 PM

Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.


not to mention, WW1 was a strange in-between war in terms of strategy and technology. Horses were still important. guns were slow and not accurate. tanks were rough to use. clunky biplanes, slow blimps, and poorly aimed bombs.

WW2, in comparison, was full of equipment that, to this day, holds in peoples memory. P51, ME109, Shermans, Tigers, Panzers, long range bombers, fully automatic weapons, V rockets, submarines, etc. All much "sexier" equipment, and some of which is considered the peak of design.

To war fans, equipment is a big deal.
 
2012-11-02 05:47:48 PM

Mouser: Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.

You're overlooking what has proven to be the biggest clusterfark of all resulting from WWI: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the creation (thanks mainly to the British and French) of the modern patchwork of Middle Eastern states. The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.


Overlook? Naw, that was an implied part of the Et Cetera. I had considered covering that particular point, but I had felt I had made enough of a point. You're entirely right on the rest though; so many problems in the Middle East (fark, rest of the world too) has its roots in colonialism, arbitrary lines on a map, and arrogance on the part of the powers that be of the time.
 
2012-11-02 05:51:03 PM

LemSkroob: Modguy: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Because it was brutal and bloody as hell, is my guess, and widely regarded as the epitome of failure in regards to the chaining treaty thing. It was by and large a massive, unmitigated clusterfark that pretty much can be pointed to as shaping the a lot of how the world is today. Setting the stage for World War 2, the impetus of the League of Nations, fall of Tsarist Russia and rise of the Soviet Union etc etc. It was and is MASSIVELY important, but it doesn't have the sweeping mystique of WW2. No true grand armies sweeping the map (with the exception of the Eastern Front). It was just a massive hell hole that lasted too long, killed too many, and gained no body anything meaningful. It's something that the Europeans tried to desperately forget, because it farked up so much.

not to mention, WW1 was a strange in-between war in terms of strategy and technology. Horses were still important. guns were slow and not accurate. tanks were rough to use. clunky biplanes, slow blimps, and poorly aimed bombs.

WW2, in comparison, was full of equipment that, to this day, holds in peoples memory. P51, ME109, Shermans, Tigers, Panzers, long range bombers, fully automatic weapons, V rockets, submarines, etc. All much "sexier" equipment, and some of which is considered the peak of design.

To war fans, equipment is a big deal.


Another good point. In my original paragraph, it's a simple matter of replacing "mystique" with "sexiness". I had opted for mystique because calling machines of war with horrifying levels of death and mayhem creeped me the hell out. And yeah, WW1 was a shambling monstrosity that marks the end of one era and way of waging war, and the start of a new one,
 
2012-11-02 05:55:31 PM

Endive Wombat: What an incredible waste of time and money


i398.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 06:02:23 PM
Trench warfare in WW1's Western Front was incredibly evil and stupid. They'd draft you, make you live in a muddy ditch with shells coming down all around you, then make you run straight at the enemy's machine guns across a field of barbed wire and broken corpses -- or they'd kill you for insubordination and desertion. Then there was poison gas to cover the stench of the rotting dead and the gangrenous living. Fun times, that.

The Eastern Front I know less about but now I'm curious. It looks like yet another kind of massive clusterfark.. 

There should have been a revolution about that in Great Britain but all the healthy young men were too busy in France dying by hundreds of thousands. Once they heard what life was like in the field, why they didn't revolt before they were drafted is beyond me: maybe something in the water?
 
2012-11-02 06:41:55 PM

Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.


That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?
 
2012-11-02 07:06:22 PM

Mentat: My trenchfoot is historically accurate.


My roomie at Fort Gordon actually got a confirmed case of trenchfoot from partying in the rain in Savannah, GA over St Patrick's Day weekend. Her feet were all red and swole up like footballs. She said as soon as word got out that it was trenchfoot, a crowd of Army medicos suddenly packed the room to have a look and it was about 30 minutes before they actually got down to treating her.

/Other than that, she said Savannah was a blast.
 
2012-11-02 08:40:59 PM

This text is now purple: Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.

That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?


The German bombing of Pearl Harbor
 
2012-11-02 09:05:43 PM
i156.photobucket.com

This book and Range 208 at Grafenwoehr Training Germany center were enough trench experience for me.
 
2012-11-02 09:21:15 PM

LemSkroob: To war fans, equipment is a big deal.


As a war fan I'd say its the relationship of equipment to the nature of the fight.
WWII had clearly defined roles and ready made heroes.
WWI was nothing but brutality, confusion and misery.

Everyone wants to be reminded about glorious days of valor and victory.
Few want to remember the pain and suffering of a protracted stalemate.

/Many of the rifles used early in WWII are of similar to what they had in WWI.
/If you want a taste of WWI or the WWII eastern front, drop $100 on a fifty plus year old Mosin Nagant .
/Beautiful Russian rifle and cheap to shoot, but after a few days of dragging it around you'll be praying for an AR.
/Compare it with an 03 springfield or SMLE, where you'll have to sign over six times as much for a similar vintage.
 
2012-11-02 10:36:24 PM
That's pretty cool, but....... ..

i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
i486.photobucket.com
Baldasare Forestiere remains unimpressed. Even though he's dead.
 
2012-11-02 10:49:30 PM
Whoa. Andrew Robertshaw doesn't study history; history studies him.
 
2012-11-03 12:59:39 AM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


I have always found it very difficult for find well written books on the war. The civil war has great writers, and so does WW II, but the Great War, not so much.

I have always wanted to read about the Italian front, because apparently that is where the great German tank generals of WW I learned their craft, but what little I have found is dry and boring.

That said, this guys trench in awesome!
 
2012-11-03 02:30:07 AM

doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.


Its one of those rare cases where the original, as big as it was, was overshadowed by the sequel, which really blew people away.

"Euro Trek II: The Wrath of Adolph" really never has been surpassed by any of the later ones, both in terms of script and cast. I've always thought it was the villain who really made these things work on so many levels.
 
2012-11-03 10:43:10 AM
OSHA would not be amused.
 
2012-11-03 01:06:50 PM

MisterRonbo: doczoidberg: World War I was actually quite fascinating....
I don't get why it doesn't receive more attention.

Its one of those rare cases where the original, as big as it was, was overshadowed by the sequel, which really blew people away.

"Euro Trek II: The Wrath of Adolph" really never has been surpassed by any of the later ones, both in terms of script and cast. I've always thought it was the villain who really made these things work on so many levels.


I agree, though I felt the whole subplot with the Benito character in TWoA was redundant.
 
2012-11-03 02:02:40 PM

This text is now purple: Mouser: The horrendous bloodshed going on over there now can nearly all be attributed to the selfish, short-sighted decisions of the victorious Allies a century ago.

That explains the last 100 years. What about the 2400 years of ceaseless bloodshed that preceded it?


The West didn't invent tribal warfare. We did, however, invent the machine gun.
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report