Interesting Military Facts & Stories You Discovered

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Quite a bit, I mean the British Admiralty came out clean a few years back that the Lusitania was illegally carrying war goods and engineered the events so it would be sunk to bring the US into the war... then there was the brutality of the reprisals that the British utilized during the Sepoy Rebellion...

... I mean when the Scottish Parlement reconvened after its disbandment centuries ago, the first statement was essentially calling the English out for being grade-A assholes, and there is one of their near-Holodomors in the Irish Famine, and let's not forget what they did to the Indians and the near Holodomor the British nearly gotten away with...

... and yes, the British were particularly brutal during the Indian Sepoy Rebellion (aka the First War of Independence for India).

I'm watching this video you posted now, and you are completely glossing over the fact that the mutineers massacred all the white people and Christians they could find, women and children included. They also promised safe passage to British troops who had promised to leave only to then ambush and massacre those men and the civilians with them. So the British weren't the only ones being brutal.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I'm watching this video you posted now, and you are completely glossing over the fact that the mutineers massacred all the white people and Christians they could find, women and children included. They also promised safe passage to British troops who had promised to leave only to then ambush and massacre those men and the civilians with them. So the British weren't the only ones being brutal.
However, that was part of the general reprisal against Westerners... and let's be honest, that was a shitshow all around.
 

Buba

A total creep
I visited the local military museum on 3.V and was astonished at how large the FT17 was.
My impression might had been coloured by looking at a tankette barely a minute previously :)
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Phalanx is apparently a Sumerian invention:

Italians produced what was likely the worst general of World War I:

Siege of Constantinople in 1204 was nearly avoided:
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Italians produced what was likely the worst general of World War I:

When people discuss terrible generals... it's often based off of their performance in one Battle and it's basically a discussion of a famous military blunder. Something like Lord Elphinstones Retreat from Kabul or Quintilius Varus losing three Legions in the Teutoberg Forest. But as with many blunders, if the General is that bad, they end up dead or at the very least... aren't placed in significant command again. Luigi Cadorna is exceptional in that he has so much credit for being known as one of the Worst Generals in History becuase he was in command for literal years of a huge force on a large front and failed again, and again, and again... with terrible and often horrific results.

Ambrose Burnside at least had humility and sympathy (and actual battlefield successes) when it came in regards to his failings for example. Luigi Cadorna possessed none and in moved to the complete opposite.

For example Cadorna was unrepetent, never showed much improvement and seemingly beyond the Battlefield, a loathsome individual who reinforced awful punishments upon his troops thus doubling down on his terrible tactical and strategic acumen. He partially re-implemented the Roman era tactic of Decimation and post war, thought his accomplishments were comparable with that of Napoleon.

Terrible in almost every category, with the exception of his moustache. But even that was pretty midtier considering his contemporaries.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
When people discuss terrible generals... it's often based off of their performance in one Battle and it's basically a discussion of a famous military blunder. Something like Lord Elphinstones Retreat from Kabul or Quintilius Varus losing three Legions in the Teutoberg Forest. But as with many blunders, if the General is that bad, they end up dead or at the very least... aren't placed in significant command again. Luigi Cadorna is exceptional in that he has so much credit for being known as one of the Worst Generals in History becuase he was in command for literal years of a huge force on a large front and failed again, and again, and again... with terrible and often horrific results.

Ambrose Burnside at least had humility and sympathy (and actual battlefield successes) when it came in regards to his failings for example. Luigi Cadorna possessed none and in moved to the complete opposite.

For example Cadorna was unrepetent, never showed much improvement and seemingly beyond the Battlefield, a loathsome individual who reinforced awful punishments upon his troops thus doubling down on his terrible tactical and strategic acumen. He partially re-implemented the Roman era tactic of Decimation and post war, thought his accomplishments were comparable with that of Napoleon.

Terrible in almost every category, with the exception of his moustache. But even that was pretty midtier considering his contemporaries.

Cadorna is basically a case study in failure, and also a case study in how to avoid consequences. He had very significant political backing, but he was also a very skilled political propagandist. As a result, he was only sacked in 1917. And as far as I am aware, not only he never did face the music (or any consequences, really) for his incompetence, he actually proceeded to have a quite successful postwar political career.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I visited the local military museum on 3.V and was astonished at how large the FT17 was.
My impression might had been coloured by looking at a tankette barely a minute previously :)

Yes,tankettes was for dwarfs or imps.I saw that and could not comprehend how two adult mens could fit there.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder


Now this is unexpected.

Seeing the Pentagon humble itself like this and admit this sort of thing, that the 'free' press's job of holding them to account is valuable and necessary, is rather amazing considering how the Pentagon always tries to pretend this sort of media coverage of their fucks ups is 'helping the enemy'.

Maybe some people in there are still capable of learning new tricks.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder


Now this is unexpected.

Seeing the Pentagon humble itself like this and admit this sort of thing, that the 'free' press's job of holding them to account is valuable and necessary, is rather amazing considering how the Pentagon always tries to pretend this sort of media coverage of their fucks ups is 'helping the enemy'.

Maybe some people in there are still capable of learning new tricks.

It does help the enemy.
But is also good free press
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
..trying to avoid civie deaths is usually something that makes us LESS enemies, and holding our gov and military to account when they cause collateral damage is patriotic duty, not 'helping the enemy'.
Civilian casualties happen.
Since the enemies we were fighting in the Mid East would use kids and women as shields...what would you rather us do? Send in a team who may get killed?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Civilian casualties happen.
Since the enemies we were fighting in the Mid East would use kids and women as shields...what would you rather us do? Send in a team who may get killed?
Maybe not be in the ME under false pretenses and forever war mania, so we aren't in that situation?

Just a thought.

The US gov and US military blew a lot of good will, a lot of trust, and a lot of PR with our ME adventures, and the half-assed job that the DC did in both A-stan and Iraq.

It's going to take a while to rebuilt it, and trying to act like holding our military accountable for their fuck-ups is 'helping the enemy' only makes the Pentagon's PR worse with the general public, not better.

Which is precisely why it is so surprising and refreshing when the US military actually comes out and owns it's fuck-ups, instead of burying them or trying to shift blame/suppress the story. I may not like NYT or a lot of their BS, but I cannot and will not fault them for holding the US gov and military accountable for their fuck-ups.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
@Bacle
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with any news outfit covering the military or any federal org with an eye to truth telling. What I do have a problem with is...well, actually I have several problems...
1. NYT gets a Pulitzer for it???? That's the story they're gonna award the Pulitzer to?
2. For some reason the Pentagon (do we know what office that quote came from? I haven't seen an exact source on it) decides to release praise for it. I don't know that I've EVER seen that happen before.
3. Just feels like ass-covering/face-saving BS, and I have no belief that anything authentic is going on here
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
@Bacle
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with any news outfit covering the military or any federal org with an eye to truth telling. What I do have a problem with is...well, actually I have several problems...
1. NYT gets a Pulitzer for it???? That's the story they're gonna award the Pulitzer to?
2. For some reason the Pentagon (do we know what office that quote came from? I haven't seen an exact source on it) decides to release praise for it. I don't know that I've EVER seen that happen before.
3. Just feels like ass-covering/face-saving BS, and I have no belief that anything authentic is going on here
See, that's reasonable; a Pulitzer for this is a bit much. And yeah, it's rather out of character for the Pentagon.

It could be ass-covering BS, crap pulled together to make NYT look better, or inter-dept/inter-office politics being played out in front of the public.

But I wanted to give the Pentagon the benefit of the doubt that maybe they are finally waking up and learning how civie PR works these days.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Maybe not be in the ME under false pretenses and forever war mania, so we aren't in that situation?

Just a thought.

The US gov and US military blew a lot of good will, a lot of trust, and a lot of PR with our ME adventures, and the half-assed job that the DC did in both A-stan and Iraq.

It's going to take a while to rebuilt it, and trying to act like holding our military accountable for their fuck-ups is 'helping the enemy' only makes the Pentagon's PR worse with the general public, not better.

Which is precisely why it is so surprising and refreshing when the US military actually comes out and owns it's fuck-ups, instead of burying them or trying to shift blame/suppress the story. I may not like NYT or a lot of their BS, but I cannot and will not fault them for holding the US gov and military accountable for their fuck-ups.
So...
Going after Bin Laden is false pretense?
Good to know you would rather have him live then killed...
I know that isn't what you are saying but sure sounds like it.

You know civilians being held hostage by our enemies is something that is going to happen. Acceptable losses.
A Taliban boss using his family as shields?
A ISIS boss suicide bombing with his kids and wife?
We should just call off any and every strike if a civie is present?
We would never win anything ever.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
So...
Going after Bin Laden is false pretense?
Good to know you would rather have him live then killed...
I know that isn't what you are saying but sure sounds like it.
How about you actually address what I say, instead of trying to overlay stuff onto it? You know, like is supposed to happen in good-faith debates/discussions.

Do you really not get that part of the reason we've had friction is because of your propensity to put words in my mouth, repeatedly and often?

And false pretenses was Iraq.

A-stan started as legit but became a farce of a forever war with no end goal or victory condition, just perpetual mission creep and an unwillingness to admit to the US public that what we really liked was Bagram's position to threaten the Chinese and Russian interiors, along with the rare earth deposits we wanted to keep some control over, and of course the poppy fields/opium supplies for pharma giants.
You know civilians being held hostage by our enemies is something that is going to happen. Acceptable losses.
A Taliban boss using his family as shields?
A ISIS boss suicide bombing with his kids and wife?
We should just call off any and every strike if a civie is present?
We would never win anything ever.
Except that's not the civie losses I was speaking about, and you know it; most civie losses are the result of carelessness or mistakes, not the enemy using human shields.

This playing dumb act and putting words in my mouth is really tiresome.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Americans executed three German saboteurs captured during the 1944 Ardennes Offensive While Wearing American Uniforms.


I didn't know that any of zee Germans saboteurs were actually executed by the Americans after a trial. And in this case it was pretty expedient. They were captured on December 17th, tried on December 21st and executed on December 23rd. It was postulated they were supposed to go behind American lines and kill high level American officers. General Eisenhower himself was isolated for a few days by security measures because of this supposed threat.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top