Warfare & Military history – Page 2

Why Japan would’ve always lost the war

Published on January 5, 2019Leave a comment

Idly browsing through grognard Youtube I came across this neat little video showcasing the difference in economic strength between Japan and the US by just listing every ship build by either country from December 7, 1941.

The Japanese leadership was well aware of this discrepancy in strength of course; admiral Yamamoto, architect of the attack on Pearl Harbour had said he could only guarantee success for six months to a year. The idea had always been to deal a crippling blow to the US navy in the Pacific, then consolidate and go on the defence, hoping to wear down the US to a negotiated peace. That obviously didn’t work and the overwhelming superiority of the US ship building industry is one reason.

Furies — Lauro Martines

Published on December 15, 2014Leave a comment

Cover of Furies

Furies: War in Europe 1450 – 1700
Lauro Martines
320 pages, including index
published in 2013

A lot of history books about war and warfare, even when they look at the impact war had on wider society, on the civilians and soldiers caught up in it, are remarkably clinical and dry about the violence it brings with it. Not so Furies: War in Europe 1450 – 1700. Before it’s good and well started, you get the first grizly massacre to process, no horrid detail spared, all the better to prepare you for the rest of the book. This is not an easy read, not your average military history wankfest, this is a book with a message and that message is that war in Early Modern/Renaissance Europe was hell, a total war where nobody cared if you lived or died.

That period from roughly 1450 to 1700 was one in which a military revolution took place, with Europe emerging from feudalism and war as a noble pursuit for knights and aristocrats giving way to mass warfare by any means necessary. It was a revolution brought about through the introduction of gundpower weapons making possible new ways of making war, as well as the growing strength of the emerging European nation-states. Add to that increasing religious schism and you have a recipe for warfare on an apocalyptic scale and Martines is not afraid to show what that meant on the ground, for the people caught up in the war.

Tercio

Published on October 25, 2014Leave a comment

From the 2006 Spanish movie Alatriste, quite likely the only realistic depiction of tercio warfare on film. For once on a youtube video you may want to check out the comments if you’re interested in pike and shot era warfare.

Ekranoplane!

Published on May 19, 20141 Comment

Somebody has uploaded a shedload of Russian airplane documentaries on Youtube, dubbed in English. A mixed bag so far, but interesting for the dedicated Soviet Military Power enthusiast.

Cameron thinks WWI makes for a great commemoration

Published on November 14, 2013Leave a comment

Charlie Stross gets a mit annoyed with David Cameron wanting to turn the Great War into another feel good British kneesup like the Diamond Jubilee and tells him what the war was really like:

If you’d been 16 in 1914, then of your class at Eton probably 4-6 would have died (Eton boys ended up as officers: the death rate among junior officers was double that among the non-commissioned ranks). Another 6-8 would have been wounded—faces burned off, arms and legs and spines shattered, lungs scarred by gas until they coughed themselves to death in middle years—these are not pretty injuries, duelling scars or badges of honour: these are vile blows that turn strong young men into lifelong cripples (the sort of people who these days fail their ATOS work assessments and are denied disability payments two weeks before they die of their condition: but I digress).

Cameron is of course the modern equivalent of the people who started and profited from World War I and it’s somewhat fitting that he would think so lightly of it, considering how callous his early 20th century counterparts were about the war.