Recent comments in /f/history

MinimalResults t1_ivj0qd7 wrote

What color primer did Germany use before painting the Stahlhelm during WW2?

I'm trying to paint a scale model of a WW2 German soldier and want to give the helmet a weathered look by chipping the helmet so it shows the primer underneath the top layer of paint.

Google tells me that German vehicles were primed using Red Oxide primer. Was this also the case with Stahlhelms? If not, are there any records of the color of the primer they used?

1

ziin1234 t1_ivinqk3 wrote

Aside from Alexander's successor states, did Macedonian phalanx catch on in other Greek colonies or just somewhere else in general? Or did many attempt it and fail for some reason, preferring the traditional Hoplite or their older ways instead?

1

TheGreatOneSea t1_ivi7dnb wrote

Besides the obvious, I assume?

The Galleon would generally have had around 38 guns as a main battery, with more, generally smaller guns, if it was being used as a warship. The additional weight needed for war could cause problems, though, like the extra weight causing ships to partially fill the bottom decks with water; the end result was clunky, if not outright dangerous. Unsurprisingly, they also tended to be quite slow given their bulk, which caused serious problems for the Spanish Armada during its infamous attack on England.

Dedicated warships would come to be double-planked in the 17th Century, making the hull more resistant to guns, and the rigging was also improved. If we're going even further to the 18th, and also going all out by comparing Galleons like the Triumph (roughly the same kind of class used by Francis Drake,) with the Océan class (probably the most advanced class of its century,) we get:

  1. A tonnage of 1000 for the galleon against 2750 of the warship.
  2. 124–136 heavier guns against a roughly 1/3 of lighter for the galleon.
  3. The 10 knots of the warship against the 8 knots of the non-war prepared Golden Hind.
  4. Such a difference in sailing characteristics that weather which would sink a war galleon could be at least survived by the Océan class.

Suffice to say, a fight between the two would be quite the massacre.

2

LICK_MY_SCROTUM t1_ivhhfsh wrote

I recently visited the papyrus museum in Vienna. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome both used papyrus for paper, and if my memory serves me, a reed pen with a special type of ink. However, much of the documents didn't survive because papyrus is biodegradable and Europe has historically a lot of soil.

Egypt and Arabia both have tons of remaining papyrus documents from thousands of years ago, but that's because it's such an arid climate that stuff stays preserved for much longer.

1

Wazzok1 t1_ivgw2u1 wrote

Honestly, it's not a baiting game. It's a discussion. We're fine.

  1. You'll notice that I gave two examples other than Russia. Conveniently you ignored them.
  2. The reason I separated my two points was because I'm fully aware Calais isn't an example of internment during war time. I clearly explained myself in italics.

Let me spell it out for you. The Calais Jungle shows that interning refugees is still a legitimate policy of 'Western' countries like France during peacetime. The examples of Russia, Serbia and Cyprus show that there is no reason to believe that during a state of war, Western nations would not intern 'enemy aliens' today.

1

RavenReel t1_ivglohr wrote

This is just all a big baiting game I see.

Second point first... Russia doesn't really matter as I said 'West' and Putin isn't listening to anyone anyway.

And Calais wasnt built by France to contain 'the enemy'. To the best of my knowledge Calais was an organic migrant camp started by migrants as they waited to legally enter France or return to England.

I'm talking about government run camps built in order to control an 'enemy' county's people is a prison-like compound.

1

MortimerGraves t1_ivgi4ky wrote

Yeah... it's complicated. :)

(As far as I know) there were no restrictions on anyone who was Māori or part-Māori (which would have been a fair few people) from serving in the NZ Army by 1939 (and there were certainly Māori veterans of WWI). Some Māori politicians and community leaders however wanted to raise the profile of Māori as subjects of the British Empire and pushed the NZ Government to create a dedicated Māori Battalion. (The 28th.) Initially many of the officers were European, (though the first 2ic of the 28th was a part-Māori WWI veteran), but these were replaced over time as Māori officers gained experience.

The 28th initially shipped out with the 2nd Echelon of the 2NZEF (the 5th Brigade) and was involved in anti-invasion duties in the UK, but once the brigade was reunited with the rest of the Division in Egypt the 28th became an additional battalion that could be moved between the Division's three brigades to provide extra infantry oomph where it was needed, and ended up fighting in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and Italy - receiving more individual bravery decorations than any of the other NZ battalions. (One private even won a US Silver Star.) :)

The difference (I guess) is that the unit wasn't there to keep "them" separate (and "in their place"), but rather at the insistence of Māori leaders to provide a opportunity to "prove the worth of Maoridom...and even secure the long-term goal of Maori autonomy". (NZ Historian Claudia Orange).

3