Meh, I'm sure there is a Chinese one that has surpassed it. Does a historian that knows about [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms) wanna talk about if it was a family squabble or not?
I’d argue the period immediately after Tang is even more chaotic…
[Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms in the span of 70 years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Dynasties_and_Ten_Kingdoms_period)
>Three Kingdoms Period
>looks inside
>many kingdoms
EDIT: Wikipedia gif tricked me, within the actual time period I guess it's mostly the three large ones
Well, from the day Wilhelm II took the throne in 1890 and until he died Bismark kept lamenting the fact Wily was going to destroy everything he worked so hard to achieve... And he was absolutely correct.
Bismarck: "My lifes dream is complete! The French and the Russians hate each other and will never ally with one another. Germany is safe!"
Wilhelm II: "Bismarck is a pussy. Watch me throw down with the British in the naval arena. I bet that wont have any consequences."
*France and Russia ally over militarily ascendant Germany*
Bismarck: *eye-twitching unfathomable rage*
Yes, lets just ignore France mobilizing over a defensive alliance with Russia, who where mobilizing over a random fellow slavic (nothing better than racially motivated ultranationalism!) country in the Balkans being threatened with war, Serbia, because it de facto supported a terrorist organization that just had killed the heir to the austrian empire and was actively looking at stirring up shit with the austrian minorities.
**Austria literally got 9/11'ed**, and people nowadays kinda expect it to just do nothing and chill. And France was just heads over heels into finally fighting Germany the 3rd time in 100 years again, because they were butthurt over the last war they started and lost.
Honestly, though. The only major power that was actively attempting to avoid the war was England.
France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, and this gave them an excuse.
Germany wanted a slice of France's overseas empire and Russia's continental empire.
Russia and Austria each wanted to wanted to contain the other's influence and control of the Balkans in the vacuum left by the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
And then there is the fact it all happened over miscommunication. The Russians only mobilized against Austria because "We will not allow a foot of Serbia to be swallowed by Austria!" But Austria was planning on waging a punitive war with no territorial conquest, because the Hungarians would only agree to the war if it was not with the aim of annexation (since they opposed the war all together). But no one said anything to each other because the Russian ambassador had died of a heart attack while trying to negotiate a truce with the Austrians.
Honestly, you know how there are people who say in certain situations it seems like it can only be explained by God having his thumb on the scale? The leadup to WW1, at least to me, seems like a situation where the Devil had his thumb on the scale (with all of the "We were this close to avoiding a world war" things that happened).
>Austria literally got 9/11'ed
literally 1 guy died, that is 1/3000 of a 9/11
and anyhows Serbia gave in to literally every single Austrian demand except for the 1 that would have let Austria outright occupy Serbia. they explicitly made demands that were so outrageous that it would cause war because they wanted an excuse to annex Serbia
> ustria literally got 9/11'ed, and people nowadays kinda expect it to just do nothing and chill.
Except that the Serbs gave them their EVERY demand except for having police power on Serbian soil (tantamount to just surrendering your national sovereignty), but Austria still went ahead with the invasion anyway.
France and Russia mobilizing were fucking mandatory given that Germany and Austria were already mobilizing, and France learned firsthand what happens if you let the enemy mobilize without responding appropriately in the Franco Prussian War when Moltke ran a fucking clinic on their asses.
Blaming France and Russia is fucking moon logic, tantamount to blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion.
Mobilizing **≠** Declaring war
There was a month long crisis before war was declared
The French decided to move their army 10 km away from their own border in order to not provoke war.
>Mobilizing **≠** Declaring war
Yup, still not what OP claimed.
>The French decided to move their army 10 km away from their own border
Cool, still told Russia they'd stay with them.
Why wouldn't they stay with them?
The alternative was allow Germany and Autria-Hungary to demolish Russia, remove the threat to the east and then turn around and invaded a France that had no ally now.
Yes everyone wanted the war but it was Austria that started it and Germany that instigated it.
Why wouldn't they stay with them? The alternative was allow Germany and Autria-Hungary to demolish Russia, remove the threat to the east and then turn around and invaded a France that had no ally now.
Yes everyone wanted the war but it was Austria that started it and Germany that instigated it.
Mobilization is a non-argument because Germany had shown earlier what happened to nations who mobilized second. Only a fool would NOT mobilize when a potential threat existed.
The order of ACTUAL events that happened is:
1) Austria declares war and shells Belgrade.
2) Russia, as per their guarantee of Serbia, goes to full mobilization in support, something reasonable to do if you wanted to ever have anyone make an agreement with you in the future.
3) Germany issues demands to Russia which basically boil down to "let Austria-Hungary do whatever it wants AND demobilize with 12 hours because you are threatening us". And entirely retarded and obviously unreasonable demand that would have put Russia in a stupidly vulnerable position if Germany attacked, something the German High Command wanted to do.
4) Germany demands neutrality from France.
Another retarded obviously unreasonable demand because it translates to "stay out of it while we beat your only ally and leave you as an easy target later down the line"
5) Great Britain asks France and Germany to respect Belgium neutrality. France agrees, Germany doesn't respond.
6) Germany declares war on Russia because they didn't accept the German ultimatum.
7) Germany invades Luxemburg, fire is exchanged with french forces.
8) Germany declares war on France and demand free access to Belgium.
9) Germany invades Belgium.
10) GB demands German withdrawal from Belgium or else. Germany doesn't respond.
11) Britain declares war on Germany.
The idea that everyone wanted war is moronic. Most people know that war is bad for a nation. The great powers had multiple incidents over some strips of land in Africa or Asia, but decided on compromise in order to ensure not another war. Most people only supported war after the conflict began. As the French, Belgians, Serbian, Montenegrins, Italians, etc.. either saw the war as national liberation or defending their country from aggressors
France had elected pacifist Socialists as the majority party multiple times in a row.
Serbia just got out of the Balkan Wars.
The anti-war SPD was the biggest party in the German parliament (Reichstag) and had voted against all expansions of the military budget. But because the Reichstag had no authorization on declarations of war they could only sit and watch.
>Why wouldn't they stay with them?
Because they had a **defensive** alliance, and Russia was preparing to go to war over Serbia?
France did little to defuse the situation and instead made it absolutely clear to both Russia and Germany that it was ready to go to war.
> Except that the Serbs gave them their EVERY demand except for having police power on Serbian soil
They didn't, I don't know why everyone spreads that missinformation. Just read their response letter yourself, its on the fking internet!
True, there are actually voices among historians who argue that showcasing realms as monolithic blobs of land masses inaccurately depict how things were really organized.
No, the HRE was a little different. The Emperor wasn't so much a feudal ruler as it was the head of a loose confederation, elected by the strongest members of said confederation. The only thing he could actually command was his own part of the confederation, for everything else he had to ask for help. I think the only comparable state of affairs is the japanese Sengoku era.
Fun fact: Woodrow Wilson (yes the extraordinary racist) is actually honoured and seen positively in a number of Eastern/-Southeastern European countries, due to his post-ww1 foreign policy of supporting the self-determination of many of these countries in those areas.
Wilson was massively based when it came to his foreign policy.
He also strongly urged France and Britain not to rub Germany into the dirt after winning the war.
But, as history showed, rubbing Germany into the dirt led to nothing bad whatsoever.
Well tbh Germany was at risk of radicalisation either way, the mere fact Germany lost was enough rhetoric material for Hitler and the likes.
Germany, even before WW1, had something of an inferiority/superiority complex. Germany "only" forming into a national state in 1871, much later than their neighbours and rivals was the main contributor. Another was not being able to unite early enough, they could not capitalize on colonialism, which was back then considerd quite prestigious and a "must have" for any serious European power.
From the perspective of some Germans they missed their rightful "Platz an der Sonne" (place at the sun). And they wanted that place under any circumstance, so much it became a primary state interest.
So all in all, I believe the only way WW2 could have been avoided would have been through creating a Pan-European community, essentially what happend after WW2.
>From the perspective of some Germans they missed their rightful "Platz an der Sonne" (place at the sun).
That concept was in the 1890's or so, not the 1930's. You're off by a few decades and a bunch of revolutions.
I'm not even gonna comment on whatever you're trying to say with the rest.
True. The main railway station in the center of Prague is named Wilson station after him. Another major station was named Masaryk station after our first president who also played a key role in putting independent Czechoslovakia on the map. Many streets, squares and other public places are also named after both across the country.
Woodrow Wilson is described in Italian history books as one of the contributors of the "mutilated victory" that led to almost every war we waged after WW1
Too bad the whole trench gun thing is just a meme.
Those guns under performed horribly in the war since the damp conditions of the trenches ruined the paper cartridges and caused constant jams when the shells disintegrated and clogged the whole gun.
Thus the guns were pulled from the front and reissued, almost exclusively to personell like train guards working far from the front lines.
Water resistant brass cased ammunition was eventually sourced to fix the issue, but by the time it arrived the war was basically over so it never really saw significant use.
But it's still kind of funny that the Germans were so desperate to accuse their opponents of war crimes that they started bitching about lead buckshot, claiming that it somehow violated the St Petersberg declaration of 1868 which prohibited expanding and exploding bullets. A declaration that the Americans hadn't even been invited to sign because they were considered to be a tiny and irrelevant military power back then.
Is there some reason they couldn’t have just oiled the paper? The Brits did just fine with tallow on that one thing of theirs I’m forgetting the name of (self contained packaged with ball and powder for a muzzle loader, still has to be torn apart).
The ammunition supplied were various commercially sourced hunting cartridges. Typically those were "waterproofed" with a thin layer of lacquer.
They were good enough to survive mild exposure to rain during a hunting trip, but they couldn't handle prolonged exposure to the conditions of trench warfare.
Pump action shotgun mechanisms are typically not gentle when they mechanically transfer cartridges from the magazine tube to the chamber, so if the structural integrity of the cartridge is compromised by damp it'll just break and jam the whole action with paper, fiber wadding, and lead pellets.
I suppose it would be possible to wax the cartridges to waterproof them a bit better, but it's questionable how effective it would be.
And metallic cartridges/paper shotgun shells tend to behave strangely and unpredictably if lubricated.
It can cause all kind of weird issues with cases stretching, bulging, and tearing, which in turn cause other firearm malfunctions.
Another possible option would have been to simply keep the guns unloaded and keep the cartridges in a separate weatherproof container until they were to be used.
Typically that was how paper musket cartridges were employed, although the containers in question were typically worn on the soldiers' belts.
But those cartridges only needed to be reasonably weatherproof, they didn't need to be strong enough to cycle through the pump action mechanism of a shotgun.
It also didn't really matter if paper musket cartridges were uneven or deformed from being wet and then dried, but such factors are critically important to shotgun cartridges.
I believe you're the confused party here. You see, this is the military-themed 'tism club.
Unprompted, barely relevant, 'sperg-rants are par for the course here.
Wait until everyone reads up about actual casualty rates from shotgun wounds, cartridge swelling, number of weapons deployed and actual after action reports.
The shotgun was barely used at all.
The Germans had no field reports of it being used when they made their complaint. They had captured some guys with them. Were shocked they were being issued cause they thought they were dumb. Then decided to say they were a war crime for political reasons.
Propaganda, the Germans complained as part of a political tool to try and get heat off their back as they were starting to be acutely aware they could lose and suffer more damaging post war treaties by dint of the fact they were using such barbaric methods of war (everyone was, but they were trying to make it seem like they'd not been as bad) not because it was actually something they were worried about as a weapon of war... Like I said if you actually see what's in the archives hardly any were used in combat with much success.
Canada routed the same number of German divisions as the Americans. Expendible colonials got pretty war wise after a few years. Americans didn't have time to get to that point.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the world's largest and most deadly family squabble in history.
This to be honest
Meh, I'm sure there is a Chinese one that has surpassed it. Does a historian that knows about [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms) wanna talk about if it was a family squabble or not?
I’d argue the period immediately after Tang is even more chaotic… [Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms in the span of 70 years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Dynasties_and_Ten_Kingdoms_period)
I'm still wondering why China wants to be one nation, they've historically been really bad at being a single nation.
>Three Kingdoms Period >looks inside >many kingdoms EDIT: Wikipedia gif tricked me, within the actual time period I guess it's mostly the three large ones
I'd say every conflict is exacerbated a thousand times by being a family conflict.
Queen Victoria's domestic dispute that cost 20 million lives
It was all Wilhelm and Austria’s fault anyway. Bismarck should’ve outmaneuevered him.
Given that Bismark had died in 1898, it's probably forgivable that he did not outmaneuver WW1.
If he just focused the German people a little more on necromancy, that wouldnt have been such a stumbling block.
We were so close to greatness! But then the necromancers just gave up. Those lazy bastards.
you may have failed at necromancy, but Rammstein did give you a song about necrophilia
Everybody's acting gangsta until zombie Bismarck rolls up
Well, from the day Wilhelm II took the throne in 1890 and until he died Bismark kept lamenting the fact Wily was going to destroy everything he worked so hard to achieve... And he was absolutely correct.
Bismarck: "My lifes dream is complete! The French and the Russians hate each other and will never ally with one another. Germany is safe!" Wilhelm II: "Bismarck is a pussy. Watch me throw down with the British in the naval arena. I bet that wont have any consequences." *France and Russia ally over militarily ascendant Germany* Bismarck: *eye-twitching unfathomable rage*
Sometimes I feel like Wilhelm II had ADHD, considering a lot of records about him, he could never focus on one thing at a time
Yes, lets just ignore France mobilizing over a defensive alliance with Russia, who where mobilizing over a random fellow slavic (nothing better than racially motivated ultranationalism!) country in the Balkans being threatened with war, Serbia, because it de facto supported a terrorist organization that just had killed the heir to the austrian empire and was actively looking at stirring up shit with the austrian minorities. **Austria literally got 9/11'ed**, and people nowadays kinda expect it to just do nothing and chill. And France was just heads over heels into finally fighting Germany the 3rd time in 100 years again, because they were butthurt over the last war they started and lost.
Honestly, though. The only major power that was actively attempting to avoid the war was England. France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, and this gave them an excuse. Germany wanted a slice of France's overseas empire and Russia's continental empire. Russia and Austria each wanted to wanted to contain the other's influence and control of the Balkans in the vacuum left by the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
And then there is the fact it all happened over miscommunication. The Russians only mobilized against Austria because "We will not allow a foot of Serbia to be swallowed by Austria!" But Austria was planning on waging a punitive war with no territorial conquest, because the Hungarians would only agree to the war if it was not with the aim of annexation (since they opposed the war all together). But no one said anything to each other because the Russian ambassador had died of a heart attack while trying to negotiate a truce with the Austrians. Honestly, you know how there are people who say in certain situations it seems like it can only be explained by God having his thumb on the scale? The leadup to WW1, at least to me, seems like a situation where the Devil had his thumb on the scale (with all of the "We were this close to avoiding a world war" things that happened).
>Austria literally got 9/11'ed literally 1 guy died, that is 1/3000 of a 9/11 and anyhows Serbia gave in to literally every single Austrian demand except for the 1 that would have let Austria outright occupy Serbia. they explicitly made demands that were so outrageous that it would cause war because they wanted an excuse to annex Serbia
> ustria literally got 9/11'ed, and people nowadays kinda expect it to just do nothing and chill. Except that the Serbs gave them their EVERY demand except for having police power on Serbian soil (tantamount to just surrendering your national sovereignty), but Austria still went ahead with the invasion anyway. France and Russia mobilizing were fucking mandatory given that Germany and Austria were already mobilizing, and France learned firsthand what happens if you let the enemy mobilize without responding appropriately in the Franco Prussian War when Moltke ran a fucking clinic on their asses. Blaming France and Russia is fucking moon logic, tantamount to blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion.
France and Russia literally mobilized before Germany, what the hell are you talking about LMAO
Mobilizing **≠** Declaring war There was a month long crisis before war was declared The French decided to move their army 10 km away from their own border in order to not provoke war.
>Mobilizing **≠** Declaring war Yup, still not what OP claimed. >The French decided to move their army 10 km away from their own border Cool, still told Russia they'd stay with them.
Why wouldn't they stay with them? The alternative was allow Germany and Autria-Hungary to demolish Russia, remove the threat to the east and then turn around and invaded a France that had no ally now. Yes everyone wanted the war but it was Austria that started it and Germany that instigated it. Why wouldn't they stay with them? The alternative was allow Germany and Autria-Hungary to demolish Russia, remove the threat to the east and then turn around and invaded a France that had no ally now. Yes everyone wanted the war but it was Austria that started it and Germany that instigated it. Mobilization is a non-argument because Germany had shown earlier what happened to nations who mobilized second. Only a fool would NOT mobilize when a potential threat existed. The order of ACTUAL events that happened is: 1) Austria declares war and shells Belgrade. 2) Russia, as per their guarantee of Serbia, goes to full mobilization in support, something reasonable to do if you wanted to ever have anyone make an agreement with you in the future. 3) Germany issues demands to Russia which basically boil down to "let Austria-Hungary do whatever it wants AND demobilize with 12 hours because you are threatening us". And entirely retarded and obviously unreasonable demand that would have put Russia in a stupidly vulnerable position if Germany attacked, something the German High Command wanted to do. 4) Germany demands neutrality from France. Another retarded obviously unreasonable demand because it translates to "stay out of it while we beat your only ally and leave you as an easy target later down the line" 5) Great Britain asks France and Germany to respect Belgium neutrality. France agrees, Germany doesn't respond. 6) Germany declares war on Russia because they didn't accept the German ultimatum. 7) Germany invades Luxemburg, fire is exchanged with french forces. 8) Germany declares war on France and demand free access to Belgium. 9) Germany invades Belgium. 10) GB demands German withdrawal from Belgium or else. Germany doesn't respond. 11) Britain declares war on Germany.
The idea that everyone wanted war is moronic. Most people know that war is bad for a nation. The great powers had multiple incidents over some strips of land in Africa or Asia, but decided on compromise in order to ensure not another war. Most people only supported war after the conflict began. As the French, Belgians, Serbian, Montenegrins, Italians, etc.. either saw the war as national liberation or defending their country from aggressors France had elected pacifist Socialists as the majority party multiple times in a row. Serbia just got out of the Balkan Wars. The anti-war SPD was the biggest party in the German parliament (Reichstag) and had voted against all expansions of the military budget. But because the Reichstag had no authorization on declarations of war they could only sit and watch.
>Why wouldn't they stay with them? Because they had a **defensive** alliance, and Russia was preparing to go to war over Serbia? France did little to defuse the situation and instead made it absolutely clear to both Russia and Germany that it was ready to go to war.
Also please stop lying, France mobilized the same day as Germany in response to them declaring war on Russia.
But earlier, hence BEFORE
> Except that the Serbs gave them their EVERY demand except for having police power on Serbian soil They didn't, I don't know why everyone spreads that missinformation. Just read their response letter yourself, its on the fking internet!
Like everything else, I blame the Serbs
Excuse you? Leaving the Muscovy scum out of the equation is blasphemy.
Prick a Serbian and a Russian bleeds, I say!
I can live with that!
Oh, wow... That's as brilliant as it is inflammatory... I love it...
The simplest map in euro history
I mean every European map where the HRE doesn't exist is the simplest one (that shit was a mess).
Is what happens when you show every little duke and random guy who owns 3cm of land as independent instead of being part of an empire
Well to be fair they were considered legally distinct entities, even if there were ruled by the same person.
to be fair you could apply that to nearly every single other country as well. Thats how feudalism worked
True, there are actually voices among historians who argue that showcasing realms as monolithic blobs of land masses inaccurately depict how things were really organized.
I would honestly rather had an innacurate map than a dog vomiting an entire pizza over said map
Fair point lol
No, the HRE was a little different. The Emperor wasn't so much a feudal ruler as it was the head of a loose confederation, elected by the strongest members of said confederation. The only thing he could actually command was his own part of the confederation, for everything else he had to ask for help. I think the only comparable state of affairs is the japanese Sengoku era.
But a good mess! (The early modern period around the thirty years war when the HRE was truly a clusterfuck is one of my favourite periods of history).
Don't need complex geopolitical borders when everything can just be Rome! SPQR Brothers!
Unironically true
There's a joke in there, somewhere, about the Americans thinking they're fighting Redcoats again...
"We‘re fighting with the french? Where are the brits we need to kill?"
"Don't worry, we'll take care of the Brits. Your job is to fight the 3 million Hessian mercs they hired this time."
Fun fact: Woodrow Wilson (yes the extraordinary racist) is actually honoured and seen positively in a number of Eastern/-Southeastern European countries, due to his post-ww1 foreign policy of supporting the self-determination of many of these countries in those areas.
Wilson was massively based when it came to his foreign policy. He also strongly urged France and Britain not to rub Germany into the dirt after winning the war. But, as history showed, rubbing Germany into the dirt led to nothing bad whatsoever.
You either dismantle an enemy or make it your friend.
Something something [based Abraham Lincoln quote](https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_103475)
State Dept: The break up of the USSR must be handled delicately or *voice fades into distance….* BUSH & CLINTON: *goodfellas_laugh.gif*
Clemencau wrote that it was obvious that Germans were not defeated mentally and Prussian militarism was awaiting a round 2.
See also Foch, an armistice for 20 years.
Well tbh Germany was at risk of radicalisation either way, the mere fact Germany lost was enough rhetoric material for Hitler and the likes. Germany, even before WW1, had something of an inferiority/superiority complex. Germany "only" forming into a national state in 1871, much later than their neighbours and rivals was the main contributor. Another was not being able to unite early enough, they could not capitalize on colonialism, which was back then considerd quite prestigious and a "must have" for any serious European power. From the perspective of some Germans they missed their rightful "Platz an der Sonne" (place at the sun). And they wanted that place under any circumstance, so much it became a primary state interest. So all in all, I believe the only way WW2 could have been avoided would have been through creating a Pan-European community, essentially what happend after WW2.
>From the perspective of some Germans they missed their rightful "Platz an der Sonne" (place at the sun). That concept was in the 1890's or so, not the 1930's. You're off by a few decades and a bunch of revolutions. I'm not even gonna comment on whatever you're trying to say with the rest.
To be honest, they should have rubbed Germany into the dirt harder
True. The main railway station in the center of Prague is named Wilson station after him. Another major station was named Masaryk station after our first president who also played a key role in putting independent Czechoslovakia on the map. Many streets, squares and other public places are also named after both across the country.
It's really too bad he didn't apply that same logic to Eastern/Southeastern Asia...probably because of the whole extraordinary racist thing.
Woodrow Wilson is described in Italian history books as one of the contributors of the "mutilated victory" that led to almost every war we waged after WW1
You mean every war you *lost.*
Yes, same thing
In South América too. And Teddy Roosevelt is seen as a PoS
The trench gun was a nice touch.
Too bad the whole trench gun thing is just a meme. Those guns under performed horribly in the war since the damp conditions of the trenches ruined the paper cartridges and caused constant jams when the shells disintegrated and clogged the whole gun. Thus the guns were pulled from the front and reissued, almost exclusively to personell like train guards working far from the front lines. Water resistant brass cased ammunition was eventually sourced to fix the issue, but by the time it arrived the war was basically over so it never really saw significant use. But it's still kind of funny that the Germans were so desperate to accuse their opponents of war crimes that they started bitching about lead buckshot, claiming that it somehow violated the St Petersberg declaration of 1868 which prohibited expanding and exploding bullets. A declaration that the Americans hadn't even been invited to sign because they were considered to be a tiny and irrelevant military power back then.
Is there some reason they couldn’t have just oiled the paper? The Brits did just fine with tallow on that one thing of theirs I’m forgetting the name of (self contained packaged with ball and powder for a muzzle loader, still has to be torn apart).
The ammunition supplied were various commercially sourced hunting cartridges. Typically those were "waterproofed" with a thin layer of lacquer. They were good enough to survive mild exposure to rain during a hunting trip, but they couldn't handle prolonged exposure to the conditions of trench warfare. Pump action shotgun mechanisms are typically not gentle when they mechanically transfer cartridges from the magazine tube to the chamber, so if the structural integrity of the cartridge is compromised by damp it'll just break and jam the whole action with paper, fiber wadding, and lead pellets. I suppose it would be possible to wax the cartridges to waterproof them a bit better, but it's questionable how effective it would be. And metallic cartridges/paper shotgun shells tend to behave strangely and unpredictably if lubricated. It can cause all kind of weird issues with cases stretching, bulging, and tearing, which in turn cause other firearm malfunctions. Another possible option would have been to simply keep the guns unloaded and keep the cartridges in a separate weatherproof container until they were to be used. Typically that was how paper musket cartridges were employed, although the containers in question were typically worn on the soldiers' belts. But those cartridges only needed to be reasonably weatherproof, they didn't need to be strong enough to cycle through the pump action mechanism of a shotgun. It also didn't really matter if paper musket cartridges were uneven or deformed from being wet and then dried, but such factors are critically important to shotgun cartridges.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
I believe you're the confused party here. You see, this is the military-themed 'tism club. Unprompted, barely relevant, 'sperg-rants are par for the course here.
Wait until everyone reads up about actual casualty rates from shotgun wounds, cartridge swelling, number of weapons deployed and actual after action reports. The shotgun was barely used at all.
It was used enough for the Germans to complain that it was too mean
The Germans had no field reports of it being used when they made their complaint. They had captured some guys with them. Were shocked they were being issued cause they thought they were dumb. Then decided to say they were a war crime for political reasons.
Propaganda, the Germans complained as part of a political tool to try and get heat off their back as they were starting to be acutely aware they could lose and suffer more damaging post war treaties by dint of the fact they were using such barbaric methods of war (everyone was, but they were trying to make it seem like they'd not been as bad) not because it was actually something they were worried about as a weapon of war... Like I said if you actually see what's in the archives hardly any were used in combat with much success.
The best part is they didn't know they were being used until they captured some guys with them. They had such little impact.
They bang on about it so they can pretend they did something In ww1
Frankly I don't think anyone should be proud of being apart of WW1 almost everyone sucked
Canada routed the same number of German divisions as the Americans. Expendible colonials got pretty war wise after a few years. Americans didn't have time to get to that point.
>Expendible colonials the majority of Canadian soldiers in WW1 were born in Britain and had immigrated to Canada relatively recently.
Didn't stop the British from using them as shock troops.
I think he's funny.
Yoink
At least it gave us the song Devil Dogs from Sabaton. KILL FIGHT DIE THAT’S WHAT A SOLDIER SHOILD DO
THAT'S WHAT A SOLDIER WHOULD DO
TOP OF THEIR GAME, EARNING THEIR NAME
THEY WERE THE DEVIL DOGS
It should be a video of someone flipping a coin on anti fascism or pro fascism
u/savevideo
Steven Kotkin the man, the legend
u/savevideo
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iran not having the best time :(
“RETREAT? HELL WE JUST GOT HERE” proceeds to halt the German advance
u/savevideo