| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 09:30:06 AM
I/He got his command to within striking distance of the enemy.
2/He achieved the advantage of surprise.
3/He probably stopped a rout and managed to organise a stand.
Anything else?
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 22 2004 : 12:00:24 PM
That isn't true, Wild. The opinion that artillery was a disappointment to some doesn't mean it didn't accomplish what it did, as opposed to the mythical Natty Bumpo brigades. They thought it should have accomplished more, is all. There is no conflict with my position. As I said then, the A bomb was probably a disappointment to someone, but that wouldn't suggest the damage from Hiroshima was really caused by something else, and if someone were quoted as saying it was a disappointment, it wouldn't change anything, would it? |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 22 2004 : 07:12:01 AM
3./4. Again, careful readers have no doubt noted that this is the third time Wild is trying to attribute that quote about artillery being a disappointment to me, rather than whoever composed the quote I provided.
Careful readers have no doubt noted this rather bizzare debating tactic you have of posting quotes to support a position and then disowning them
It doesn't defeat my purpose. Disappointment is subjective opinion,
If you use subjective terms which do not defeat your purpose you cannot then suggest that they support your purpose and therefore they are useless.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 4:36:03 PM
Sigh. By paragraph, Wild.
1. Okay, say they were. Still evidence for artillery. There's evidence for rifle fire, but there's no evidence that only or even mostly it was rifle fire from 800 yards or more at any of these events.
2. Bizarre in that they'd take absurd casualties, lose their horses, and even if able to hit the target, be unable to keep it, so what is the point? All through the Civil War, cavalry could only in rare instances beat infantry, but even cavalry battles devolved to an endless series of counterattacks, often to no particular strategic or tactical point other than mutual exhaustion.
3./4. Again, careful readers have no doubt noted that this is the third time Wild is trying to attribute that quote about artillery being a disappointment to me, rather than whoever composed the quote I provided. It doesn't defeat my purpose. Disappointment is subjective opinion, but the shredded bodies were not. There were probably those disappointed in the atomic bomb, as well, because they expected more.
5./6. Yes, we're bizarre. There's a newsflash...... |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 3:54:09 PM
Boer artillery neither had to be numerous nor fire en masse because the British lay there and took it for hours. Again, the quotes from the soldiers who were there....
Perhaps you will permit me to use a favourite tactic of yours and suggest the quotes of your soldiers were biased.Here we had professional soldiers,members of illustrious regiments being out fought by a bunch of farmers.Are they going to admit that?No way.It was the artillery manned by Huns that was to blame.
Since machine guns or even mass infantry with rifles, cavalry charges were bizarre,
The normal role for cavalry was to charge broken infantry.Nothing bizarre with that.
So you have no evidence that long range rifle fire alone did the job in contravention to your initial claim.
Lets leave camels and the Titanic and the rest of your smoke screen and take this issue and perhaps pin down just where you are having difficulty.
First we have the mauser magazine rifle.This rifle has an effective range of over 1000 yards.You dont dispute this.
Second we have the target.Tommy Atkins and thousands of his comrades lined up as if on parade and preparing to advance on the defences of the Boers.No dispute here,that was the standard infantry attacking formation of the day.
Then we have the Boer defensive system which was to fortify mountain tops and await the approach of Tommy.The Boer will have had time to set the ranges to the various landmarks and his commanding heights gives him an excellant view of the battle field.No dispute there ?
Now we come to the Boer himself and his skill with his Rifle.Unlike his rival Tommy who is a product of industrial slums our Boer is a frontiers man. A natural horseman with the necessary skill with the rifle to ensure his survival in continious conflicts with natives and Brits.Apparently this is where your difficulty lies.You are unable to credit the Boer rifleman with having defeated the massed formations of the British infantry.
Now as you have said the artillery was disappointing on both sidesand we can dismiss the evidence of the soldiers because as you pointed out this kind of thing is unreliable,so we are really just left with the rifle.Unless of course you discover some other weapon in the armory of the Boer.
As Arty Doyle's hero would say elementry my dear Black Cloud.
Militaries are standard in all governments and bizarre in priorities and thinking.
Militaries far from being bizarre are the natural manifestation of our inclination to kill one and other.But if militaries were bizarre the the US would perhaps be the most bizarre country on the face of the earth.
Regards
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 8:40:29 PM
Again by paragraph:
1. haven't disagreed with my own statements nor disavowed a quote I provided. I provided the quotes in context, whereas you pull yours - if they are quotes - out of context excluding anything that doubts your point.
2. Almost clever attempt to reverse my meaning. In any case, as we've already established, you already DID claim the damage was done from 800 yards by long range rifle fire and not, by your omission, by artillery or close in fire.
3. Boer artillery neither had to be numerous nor fire en masse because the British lay there and took it for hours. Again, the quotes from the soldiers who were there....
4. So you have no evidence that long range rifle fire alone did the job in contravention to your initial claim.
5. Since machine guns or even mass infantry with rifles, cavalry charges were bizarre, given the large means of vulnerable propulsion. Our CW generals avoided sending cavalry against infantry. Camel care was not a big deal in France. Bizarre priorties, and laziness in using outdated manuals for years on end. Haig allowed one machine gun per unit. Bizarro times a gazillion. Yet, standard.
6. Militaries are standard in all governments and bizarre in priorities and thinking.
7. It's refuted because what effect they had isn't proveable and the damage attributed to them more reasonably laid at the feet of the more logical alternatives.
8. As I said, the Germans weren't prepared for any but token resistence at that point. They had no trouble getting through when their attention was drawn to the slight slowdown of their sweep. The Brits were stubborn and fought well but like everything about Mons this got blown way out of proportion. Brit civilians after the war still thought they'd won that battle, which was news to the Germans and French. It was Brit propaganda at its finest to mask the BEF's utter defeat by a huge enemy force. And yes, the Germans exaggerated the great British shooting skills to explain to Moeltke (soon to be removed himself)why they weren't on schedule, and the Brit press was all over that. All too familiar.
9. Whatever that means. Given that the British had torpedoed a fleet in Italy, it is very bizarre the US wasn't remotely prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even torpedo nets were missing. We actually thought the Japs had bad eyes, couldn't fly or fight at night, and were incapable of making and designing good equipment. Bizarre thinking habits given the numerous results of such throughout history.
ALL of this is only important because what starts as an official excuse or disinformation or mistake sometimes gets into history as fact. Only later do the facts come out.
The Titanic sank because Captain Smith made an incompetent decision, the crew made incompetent decisions, and the ship was made of inferior metal which..
...was reflected in the quality being put into warship armor, leading to much of the damage at Jutland where British ships blew up because of bad design and concepts and a baseless self confidence which could never be admitted during the war.
This reflects on LBH because the various agenda driven groups in our country had to pat this all into shape. In reality, it was merely a lost battle. Is all. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 6:13:31 PM
That's a quote I provided, not a statement I made, not a belief I hold. Clearly, the Boer artillery worked. The quotes I provided from Spion Kop vets are rather emphatic
Are we to take it that along with disagreeing with your own statements you are now disowning the quotes you provide?
A single quote about effective firing at 800 yards or more absent other munitions.
I'm afraid I can't as the Brits never attacked with infantry alone so the Boer Riflemen were always under incoming.
Second, if there's artillery why wouldn't that be even more effective and responsible for the damage?
Boer Artillery was never numerious enough to fire in batteries.They were used as single guns or at the most a pair and always in a supporting role.And generally went silent when faced with counter battery fire from the heavier British Naval guns.
Again, an action with no other form of munition where rifle fire was the key at 800 or more yards would bolster your position.
You are asking me did the Boer army ever deploy in a serious engagement without the presence of supporting arms?I know you described them as a bigger joke than the British but they were really not that stupid.
Absurd. 'Standard' military manuals in WWI covered cavalry charges and camel care. Both standard and bizarre,
Since when were cavalry charges bizarre and I would imagine instructions on camel care were necessary if you were a member of the camel corps in Arabia.
Much in the military to this day is bizarre to the rest of the world.
If you take something out of its natural environment it might appear bizarre.But we were talking military tactics as used in a military envoirment ie a war.So the word bizarre is inappropriate.
No, no. You have said that "...the casualties for the Spion kop or Magersfontein ... were inflicted by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards" (complete quotes in previous postings). No short range, no artillery, nothing else. I provided evidence and quotes that this wasn't the case.
I also failed to mention that the Brit Artillery also dropped a few rounds short with some unfortunate results.None of these red herrings refute my contention that it was the new rifle in the hands of good riflemen which was responsible for the defeat of the British in the main engagements during the first year of the war.
Childish
Then I'll ask again what checked the Germans at Mons?Would it have been 70000 magazine rifles?
It is very bizarre for armies to know the range and effectiveness of weapons and pretend the enemy is stupid and doesn't know how to use them.
It is very bizarre for you to know the range and effectiveness of weapons and pretend the Boer is stupid and doesn't know how to use them.[/b][/i]
Regards
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 3:45:28 PM
By your paragraphs:
1.and 2. One of the problems with you not using quotation marks correctly or consistently. That's a quote I provided, not a statement I made, not a belief I hold. Clearly, the Boer artillery worked. The quotes I provided from Spion Kop vets are rather emphatic.
3. A single quote about effective firing at 800 yards or more absent other munitions.
4. Why? First, is it true? Second, if there's artillery why wouldn't that be even more effective and responsible for the damage? Again, an action with no other form of munition where rifle fire was the key at 800 or more yards would bolster your position.
5. Absurd. 'Standard' military manuals in WWI covered cavalry charges and camel care. Both standard and bizarre, which also means grotesque, whimsical, strange. Much in the military to this day is bizarre to the rest of the world. What is standard is not necessarily popular or generally approved of, like drug laws, having been established by chance.
6. No, no. You have said that "...the casualties for the Spion kop or Magersfontein ... were inflicted by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards" (complete quotes in previous postings). No short range, no artillery, nothing else. I provided evidence and quotes that this wasn't the case.
7. Childish. They put up a great fight outnumbered by a great deal. and after the Germans realized they were serious about staying, they hammered them seriously.
8. Childish. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 2:29:44 PM
I dismissed the British, not the Boer, artillery, leading to....
On both sides the results of artillery fire during the war have been disappointing
You were saying?????
Zulus: I haven't seen evidence this shooting took place,Could I suggest you google Blood River---something about 10000 being totally defeated by the Boers and while you are at it check out their wars with the Basutos.the Bakathla,Barolongs and Bakwena .Try also BronkhorstSpruit,Laing's Nek,Ingogo heights not to mention Majuba.
The fact that you haven't seen evidence does not effect anything I have posted.
If the Brits got hammered with short range and long range rifle fire,etc
As the Brits usually got stopped long before they ever got within short range fire it is reasonable to state that most of their casualties came from long range fire.
Note, while you do not claim there were positions further away, the word "over" suggest that
I'll give you that on a technicality and perhaps you can allow me this on a technicality.Bizarre and standard tactics are not mutually exclusive terms.Bizarre meaning unusual cannot therefore mean standard
Find a battle with no alternative munition that is testimony to this great shooting.
In saying that the Boer rifle men were good I ment under battlefield conditions.In other words they were effective when under artillery fire themselves.So how on earth does finding a battle without artillery, support your arguement.
We are talking battlefields here with all the varying elements---incoming,light,wind,cover,numbers etc.What are you looking for a vacuum clinical range?
The Germans, like the Brits before them, were momentarily stopped by the BEF at Mons because they were not prepared for the Brits to make a stand
What did the Brits just jump up out of the trenches and shout BOOor did the massed volley firing have something to do with it.
It is very bizarre for armies to know the range and effectiveness of weapons and pretend the enemy is stupid and doesn't know how to use them.
Just like you
Bye |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 12:12:39 PM
Zulus: I haven't seen evidence this shooting took place, much less at long range, much less successfully, and am unclear how such is great training for long range mass fire.
sabres: they played no key role at Omduran unless you want to dress up that last sorta cavalry charge, and given the Brits were hammered in the 1st Boer War, what was their great effect?
I dismissed the British, not the Boer, artillery, leading to....
If the Brits got hammered with short range and long range rifle fire, and two types of artillery, it's rather disingenuous to say 'look at the damage the long range rifle fire did' when there is small evidence it did much of anything given the far more likely accomplishments of the other two probabilities.
You said, and recently repeated: "Check out the casualties for the Spion kop or Magersfontein and remember they were inflicted by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards", a contention I doubted. Note, while you do not claim there were positions further away, the word "over" suggest that. You do not mention shorter ranges OR the artillery. Your quote says "by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards". I'm not in trouble. Find a battle with no alternative munition that is testimony to this great shooting.
Bizarre and standard tactics are not mutually exclusive terms.
The Germans, like the Brits before them, were momentarily stopped by the BEF at Mons because they were not prepared for the Brits to make a stand at all. Neither were the French, who were in rapid retreat. And despite all the hoopla and angels and bowmen from Argincourt the Brits were hammered and lost the battle. It is very bizarre for armies to know the range and effectiveness of weapons and pretend the enemy is stupid and doesn't know how to use them. This was the stigmata of Haig. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 04:33:25 AM
Zulus appear May 26: "The Boers had already defeated the Brits in the first Boer War and what better practice did they need than yearly range practice on live Zulu targets?" This was not even an issue just background information to support my contention that the Boer rifleman was skilled and quiet capable of effective longrange mass firing.
(By the by, where were lances and sabres so effectively used? "Further to the use of Sabres.The Brits used Sabres and lances to great effect at Omdurman [1889]and also in the Boer War 1990.") May24You're in enough difficulty without worrying about butter knives and pig stickers.
But to your again provided quote, there is no mention of artillery
You have already dismissed the artillery as disappointing.
or closer positions than 800 yards,
Nor did I mention that there were positions further away.So what?
You assume and contend that all the casualties were done by rifles at 800 yards or more at two battles.
Nowhere will you find that I used the word all in my posts.
You are crediting me with your assumptions
In any case, no conclusive evidence of great long range shooting
I think battles lost with infantry stopped in their tracks 600 yards out from their objectives is conclusive evidence.
and a lot of evidence that the Brits needed to contend that it existed to excuse their bizarre moves with obscene casualties.
These moves far from being bizarre were the standard tactics of all modern armies.What happened to the Brits would have happened to any army at that time.The Brits were just unfortunate to be the first to come up against the modern rifle.
If the Boers had not been good riflemen and been unable to stop mass infantry attacks 600 yards out,the attacking force would have got close enough to deliver a bayonet charge and the Boer War would have consisted of only one Battle.
At Mons 14 years later the Brits did to the Germans what the Boers had done to them.In fact the Germans were convinced that they had come up against battalions of machine gunners.But in you book this would have been only propaganda to excuse bizarre moves. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 11:23:24 AM
Zulus appear May 26: "The Boers had already defeated the Brits in the first Boer War and what better practice did they need than yearly range practice on live Zulu targets?"
(By the by, where were lances and sabres so effectively used? "Further to the use of Sabres.The Brits used Sabres and lances to great effect at Omdurman [1889]and also in the Boer War 1990.") May24
But to your again provided quote, there is no mention of artillery or closer positions than 800 yards, which there were in spades, with the artillery holding the attention of the survivors. You assume and contend that all the casualties were done by rifles at 800 yards or more at two battles. At SK there was artilley and closer fire. I provided a quote about Magersfontein that the Boers could fire blindly and not miss, no range provided, though. In any case, no conclusive evidence of great long range shooting, and a lot of evidence that the Brits needed to contend that it existed to excuse their bizarre moves with obscene casualties.
But there was shooting at those ranges, which I would not have believed remotely effective, but the existence of the sights, if nothing else, proved otherwise. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 08:38:30 AM
This is my first post on Boer use of longrange rifle fire
Check out the casualties for the Spion kop or Magersfontein and remember they were inflicted by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards
Where's the hunting and Zulus there. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 07:13:03 AM
Neither sad nor weak. You're now conflating your original contention of accurate shooting at 800 yards (hunting and those Zulus) with mass fire, a different thing. And you're removing the chronology of the posts.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 04:07:11 AM
Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed. That's ludicrous, and in the cases mentioned, not true.
since I originally couldn't imagine aimed fire at individuals at 800 yards with no scope.
Now Dark Cloud do you see a difference between those two posts.Rather inconsistant don't you think?A slight shift,some neat foot work and then throw in That it was more effective than I originally thought isn't saying anything, Is that what it has come to?a little distortion coupled with rubbishing one's own posts?
Sad |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 3:25:10 PM
No I haven't, and your quotes of mine don't lead to that conclusion. That it was more effective than I originally thought isn't saying anything, since I originally couldn't imagine aimed fire at individuals at 800 yards with no scope. You bolstered my belief this was your contention by talking about hunting beasts and Zulu. In fact, as was explained to me, anything at this range was aimed at a general location, and we don't know how good it was to the exclusion of the other options.
There were people shooting at long range concurrent with shorter range and artillery. You only pushed the long range rifle fire, omitting the rest.
The British can't excuse their crappy officers not getting their men into better positions of safety, so it becomes fear of being shot that keeps their head down to no avail. If the Boers weren't great marksmen, why did the Brits leave the men on Spion Kop to no known purpose? Ergo, the Boers have to be great marksmen in the report. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 2:53:29 PM
Hi Dark Cloud
That's not to say that rifle fire was not effective, and more effective than I initially thought
So while I concede there was long distance fire,
Now you have come around to admitting rifle fire was effective and that it was employed at long range.So the only thing remaining is to factor out the artillery , but you have already done this by posting,On both sides the results of artillery fire during the war have been disappointing
So can we at last agree that the Boers employed effective longrange rifle fire that rendered the British military system of the day redundant. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 11:05:25 AM
Conan Doyle was a medical doctor, a trained observer, a well respected writer and authority on a number of topics. Sherlock Holmes was a lark for him.
It is not my opinion that British military history was censored, it is a fact cheerfully admitted for the most part. But what does British military censorship have to do with LBH?
You don't have to quote 4 pages. Just a sentence or two in quotes.
A fascinating manual reproduction of military firepower. If the claim is made of great marksmanship, it's up to you to prove it. First, you have to factor out all that artillery. Then you have to prove that significant hits came from the distance you claimed. You haven't done that because it cannot be done. The Brits want to present the Boers as superhuman fiends in white skin tearing apart British youth, and to damn the Kaiser for his infernal weaponry.
Maybe good soldier, with the sights and weapons of the Boer War, could possibly put ten rounds into nine square feet in one minute from 300 yards away. So what? The vast majority cannot come close to that. If soldiers were anywhere near that good on average, casualties would average 75% every battle. Three football fields, stationary target, maybe they could. Under fire, moving target, good luck. Nearly three times that distance? Come on.
The fact that the Brits were still talking bayonet charges and cavalry charges against the new weapons THROUGH WWI is proof beyond doubt of their stupidity, encapsulated by Haig's theory the machine gun might be useful as a sort of support and one per unit was enought, surely. Everyone started out that dumb, but Haig retained it throughout the war.
If they're shooting down a mile away at an enemy plainly visible and immobile, eventually they'll hit something. But this is hardly great shooting. Calling the Boers such great shots is residue from the old propaganda used to excuse British incompetence. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 09:11:07 AM
Again, these aren't quotes,
I'm not going to reproduce 4 pages for you
but references with your summations. I have given times ,place, units,commanders,outcome.The loss of two batteries to rifle fire was one of the main actions of this battle and you can always google battle of Colenso
Again, this is a suspect publication.You wanted the quote from this tome. Your theory on everything published before ww1 being suspect is rather eccentric and must make your understanding of the LBH battle rather difficult.
This is Arthur Conan Doyle The Great Boer War .A man with a very fertile imagination.Given to writing about detectives and such thingies.
Here too, we find executive summation of the horror of long range rifle fire, although again there's that artillery with exploding air charges.Artillery was not a new weapon.If it had only been the Boer artillery which the British military had to face, their massed infantry tactics would have succeeded.However the magazine rifle was such a huge technical advance that for all practical purposes it was a new weapon.
British tactics were based on confronting the short ranged inaccurate slow firing musket.It came as a shock to them to be engaged not at 200 yards but at 1000 plus yards.In fact their artillery manuals were changed to prohibit their batteries getting within 2000 yards of riflemen.
we are intially told of the great rifle shooting from a thousand yards or more! Yet an observer drops it to 6-800, and hints of a closer flank position, and in any case there was enemy artillery as well. Armies are not drawn up in a nice parade ground straight line,terrain will dictate the location of units and defences.If some firing comes from 300 yards it does not mean that riflemen 900 yards away are ineffictive.Same goes for Artillery support.
So while I concede there was long distance fire, how good it was is hard to say given there always seems to be artillery as well, At 300 yards a good soldier can put 10 rounds into a target measuring say 3ft x 3ft. in one minute.A brigade of infantry 1800 men strong advancing in 3 lines will present a target measureing 600 yards x 12 yards.It will take this attacking force 12 minutes to cover 1000 yards to close with the enemy and deliver a bayonet charge.In 12 minutes a defending force of 500 rifle men can fire 60000 rounds into the advancing force.That's 33 rounds per target.In the Boer war the Brits never got within bayonet distance of the Boers.
Also, the great Boer rifle fire always seems to be key in these early battles when British incompetence was finely honed and excuses needed.If the Brits were incompetent so also were all the combatants of the first WW.Anywhere the magazine rifle made an appearence armies seemed to be struck down with incompetence.
Regards
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 4:50:17 PM
Again, these aren't quotes, but references with your summations. Again, you don't mention the Boer artillery fire. Again, this is a suspect publication.
For example: http://www.free-ebooks-uk.netfirms.com/great-boer-war/11-battle-of-colenso.html This is Arthur Conan Doyle The Great Boer War. Is this the same author as your Times' tome?
Here too, we find executive summation of the horror of long range rifle fire, although again there's that artillery with exploding air charges. In here, which I believe to be quoted from the seven volume horror, we are intially told of the great rifle shooting from a thousand yards or more! Yet an observer drops it to 6-800, and hints of a closer flank position, and in any case there was enemy artillery as well.
So while I concede there was long distance fire, how good it was is hard to say given there always seems to be artillery as well, the British are immobile without cover, and the commanding General is always Buller, and idiocy is in the water.
Also, the great Boer rifle fire always seems to be key in these early battles when British incompetence was finely honed and excuses needed. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 4:09:37 PM
A quote to support my contention that the Boer army proved time and time again that they could employ long range rifle fire to good effect.
SourceThe times History of the war in South Africa 1899-1900
vol 2
Pages 440-443 and 451
Battle Colenso
Brit units engaged 14 and 66 batteries of the 1st Brigade.
Action The advance of these batteries to within 1200 yards of the Boer defences
Brit CommanderCol. Long
NoteAs there are 4 pages describing the action I'm not going to reproduce the entire text but just briefly describe the action.
Col Long artillery CO. was ordered to advance with infantry support to engage the Boer.Col Long being from the same school as Custer disregarded his infantry support and galloped his Batteries to within 1200 yards of the Boer positions.He was a believer that the closer the artillery to the enemy the greater the effect.However without infantry support he put his guns in great danger.
The Guns unlimbered and went into action only to have the Boer riflemen return a devasting fire.Although serving their guns with great gallentry the gunners were decimated.Ammunition could not get though to the batteries and many of the horses had been killed.
The Batteries were abandoned and at the end of the battle the Boer came out of their defences and made off with 10 guns.
That battery was destroyed by rifle fire at a range of 1200 yards. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 1:42:27 PM
Ah you're too smart for me Dark Cloud |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 12:28:42 PM
That's Sedgewick during our Civil War. I don't believe that one either. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 12:07:29 PM
Nearly forgot the quote I promised---------
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist......
Last words of Major General D Wynne as he mounted a wall to get a better look at the Boer positions over 1000 yard away. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 10:59:31 AM
No Wild, while I was wobbled with evidence that long range firing was done - which I initially did not believe could be done with meaningful effect (some say it can) and so believed it was not done - it was later brought out there was no actual evidence it was done from 800 yards or more effectively, since there was also artillery fire on those occassions when it was used, which is what seems to have caught the attention of those who survived at Spion Kop. You didn't tell us this at the beginning, so much of that exchange was based on incomplete information.
I was talking about the collapse of that 1918 attack, not the loss of the war later. There is no actual explanation other than failure of will, since the Allies were in complete retreat, to explain why the Germans stopped. The Americans played a very small role in WWI. They were more of a threat in being than a real threat to that point. Hell of a lot of young men pouring across the Atlantic.
The Boers had no system or ability to train artillery gunners; they hired Krupp and were trained by Germany. They did not consistently defeat the Brits. In fact, after the first few battles where the Brits still stun and awe with their incompetence, the Boers lost every battle. Their 'field Army' folded up not unlike the Confederacy, with troops just melting away, supposedly all becoming heroic guerillas. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 08 2004 : 10:13:35 AM
It's of dubious sincerity to reach back to the beginning of our debate and hope everyone's forgotten the thread from nearly a month ago.
Oops, are you now telling us that there are rules.Of course only to be applied when there is a danger that your first contention will be shown to be at such variance with the position you now hold.
So just to recapitulate.You started out by stating that the Boer army was a bigger joke than the British army and that it was ludicrous to say that they were capable of effective long range rifle fire.Add to this that according to you they were not a field army and had no quartermaster system.Then how in the name of jumping Jupiter did they develope an artillery corps,trained gunners, supply and maintain it in the field and consistently defeat the Brits?Your arguement makes no sense.
The Boer rifle commando was the principal element of the Boer army and this fact cannot be challenged by an attempt to now suggest that it was the Boer artillery which was the main striking unit.
I'm not a military man, nor do I have aspirations to be mistaken for one in the safe confines of anonymous forums or anywhere. We do know, however, that they often worked and the armchair generalization of 'defense' over 'offense' is merely blather fodder for military baseball card enthusiasts.
Listen Dark Cloud you and I are far too old to be out jogging or whatever, so we spent a few hours exchanging blather on anonymous forums, so let's at least blather nicely.
The Germans broke through in desperation in 1918, hardly due to tanks,
4 years to accomplish a break through????Perhaps the defences were on top.
and it was only their own exhaustion and inability to sieze the moment that collapsed them and prevented capture of Paris and ending the war.
I think perhaps the arrival of the Yanks and the collapse of Austria had bearing on the defeat of Germany.
Regards |
|
|
