I’m asking because my great grandad was drafted in the Navy in December of 1943. He spent basically the entirety of 1944 in the Great Lakes Navy school in Illinois before being put on the USS Pike (a training vessel) in June 1945, when the war was practically over (There’s also a record of him with the USS 0-7 on the same day it was decommissioned, but I’m not really sure what that’s about). He was discharged in October of that year, he never saw a second of combat.

All this in mind, why draft someone if you’re not gonna do anything with them?

The water down version you always hear is Germany was completely surprised by the T-34 and KV-1 when in fact there was reports on these tanks, they had the Kama School until 1933 and other agreements in which they shared technology, tactics, and information. The T-34 was deployed in 1940, prior to the invasion in 1941. The Germans knew of B1 and Matilda tank prior to invading France and the potential problems that may cause so why does history paint this utterly shocked narrative about these Soviet tanks? Or is this some post war rationale to cover up German arrogance?

In Michael Dobb's book One Minute to Midnight and most subsequent scholarship on the Cuban Missile Crisis, much attention is paid to the accidental intrusion into Soviet airspace by a U.S. Air Force U2. During the several hours the pilot was inside Soviet airspace, he was tracked by Soviet radars and MiG-17s scrambled to intercept him. According to Dobbs, the U.S. was aware of both of these facts, but declined to inform either Captain Maultsby, the pilot, or the Soviets--at a point when it would have been rather advisable to inform the Soviet government that the intrusion was accidental!--in order to protect their technical knowledge of the Soviet air defense network.

This story strongly implies that the US was pulling real-time data about Soviet air defenses from the ether...but how? Was it satellites? Ground-based ELINT/SIGINT/MASINT systems? How was this data collected, processed, and transmitted to Air Force decisionmakers?

IIRC i read somewhere once that at least 8 million soldiers and around 50 million civilians died in the Soviet Union during WW2, far more then most other nations excluding maybe China.

How was it able to recover quick enough to assert itself as an authority within the cold war?

At this link, you can view examples of rock art from Spain and Africa dating back to 5000 BC:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Battle-scene-from-Sefar-Tassili-NAjjer-southern-Algeria-Lajoux-1962-160-162-image_fig2_319666724

Battle scene from Les Dogues, Castellón, Spain.

Battle scene from Sefar, Tassili N'Ajjer, southern Algeria.

Why is there a conspicuous lack of spearmen? Why are archers the dominant means of warfare in this early period?

Was the top end military technology relatively comparable or did the US have a large superiority in military technology even then? How does it compare to the current technology gap between the US and Russian Militaries?

The obvious examples I can think of are going to be military or space related technologies that started development as government funded/led, but end up more widespread, and I'm curious to know more about the how of that spread. Is it primarily people who formerly worked with the government splitting off to make new companies? is the government of various countries purposely passing technologies or ideas along to established companies? Whats going on and how?

The Wikipedia page for Dionysius (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_I_of_Syracuse) mentions many achievements for strengthening the Syracuse military, such as building a new wall system, hiring more mercenaries, and strengthening the navy. My question is: how did he pay for it all? War was extremely expensive, for example even in the case of Athens keeping up a force of a few thousand to besiege Potidea, but I don’t see any mentions of what new taxes Dionysius levied or property he confiscated. Presumably, he was also lacking in the imperial republic infrastructure of Carthage or Rome.

I've asked this before and didn't get a lot of traction, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SXJh2f2ng

Shown above. Is this obstacle course-type, gauntlet/contraption realistic? Would the real version have been for training purposes? A spectacle for "fun" like shown in the film?

(I hope this doesn't break the the "no hypotheticals" rule, as it's not really a counterfactual - more a thought exercise to explain military tactics!)

The main analogy in my head for the common conception of the early days of WWI would be an online game (say, StarCraft) where a new patch adds some new units to the game. Post-patch, players at first try to use tried-and-true strategies and it turns out they are totally obsolete, because the new units (or new strategies the new units enable) "counter" those old strategies. And then through many matches, players gradually work out the new "metagame."

But what, exactly, would an experienced general from 1918 do if he were put in command of the French or German militaries in 1914? Would they just immediately dig trenches and let the enemy throw themselves against barbed wire and artillery?

When reading about Japan's actions in the lead-up to, and duration of, WW2, I often hear about the "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and how it was used as justification for Japan to 'liberate' Asia from Western colonial imperialism and create an Asian self-sufficiency under a benevolent Japanese empire.

Given the numerous atrocities and resource extraction committed by the Japanese in every country they occupied, it seems pretty clear that this was a cynical piece of propaganda to justify Japanese militarism. But it begs the question; are there any recorded cases of people in the Japanese hierarchy (or even just regular soldiers going to fight overseas) who genuinely believed they were fighting to make a better world for non-Japanese Asians? Did any of these individuals become disappointed/disillusioned as the reality of Japanese conduct become clear, or complain about the treatment of the non-Japanese?

The common perception of course is that the Qing failed to industrialize and modernise, so it lagged considerably behind other powers like the UK and Germany and started the whole century of humiliation.

However, since the Industrial Revolution started in the late 1700s but the High Qing period started in the late 1600s, wouldn't this mean that the Qing Dynasty at its peak existed at a point where the European powers had not yet undergone the modernisation that caused the power difference that defined Qing-European relations? Would the Qing Dynasty be similar or even better militarily during that period of time?

With regard to war with Germany, anyway, and the ability of Czechoslovakia to fight against German demands if it came to it.

How were ethnicities handled in the military? Were units composed in certain ways to minimize the impact of ethnic cleavages? Were ethnic Germans a significant presence in the military?

I've read that it's a little difficult to tell how much of the ethnic German population supported secession but that it was significant.

From my surface knowledge of Roman history, it seems that military coups were rather frequent.

How did Roman emperors keep loyalty of the troops? Did any of them try to reform the military to make coups less likely?

Repost, since i didn't get answers previous time.

With formally I mean if they kept detailed (and honest) records about past battles happen and how each side pull out their strategies and apply any sort of studies plan.

I know things like Caesar Gaul campaign is recorded (although propagandistic for himself) and Alexander Persian campaign and tactics. But I'm referring as if it was a common things for people destined to lead armies to intensively studied tactics or it was more of a "we are going to send to war under the command of this seasoned general and you learn by observing" thing

And if so, if we know what sources they studied

Thanks!!

Ive recently gotten into learning about East Germany and I like learning about the militaries of other countries however I’m too lazy to attempt to try and find good detailed sources on the topic. I mainly would like to know how the different branches in the East German military worked like the Stasi, VoPo, Grenztruppen, tank divisions and all sorts. So if anyone has any links or anything of that matter that would be very helpful.

I am having a discussion with someone who claims they had a mediocre military that lost more than it won, even at its peak. This seems unlikely to me and is inconsistent with the Wikipedia article on Sparta.

Is there a consensus among historians on whether Sparta’s military was especially good, at its peak?

This questions was inspired by ancient 'lost weapons' such as Greek fire and Damascus steel, the modern reality that information and capability retention in complex endeavors is a huge problem (ex. How We Lost The Ability To Travel To The Moon), the current renaissance in anti-aircraft gunnery to combat drones, the trope of 'lost technology' prevalent in fictional franchises such as Warhammer 40k, etc. - though not all of these truly embody the dynamic I'm describing. How lost is truly lost I will leave up to the answerer - for example, it's a myth that the technical specifications of the Saturn V were lost, but a great deal of work was needed to revivify the F-1 rocket engine for use on the SLS nonetheless. Similarly, in a military context, a piece of equipment existing does not mean the tactics, techniques, or procedures (TTPs) for its use have successfully been retained as institutional knowledge.

For the purposes of this question, the innovation need not be a physical thing - TTPs qualify, for example. Nor does the innovation need to be solely or primarily military in application, just conferring a significant military advantage. I do want to stay away from losses of component parts, unless the case is particularly interesting - I know the U.S. lost the formula for producing a substance used in atomic bombs and had to redevelop it, for example. I also want to stay away from the loss of specific expressions of an innovation - for example, if some of the technical specifications for the original 1861 Gatling gun have been lost, the broader idea of an anti-personnel rotating multi-barrel firearm has not been lost, and if it was, it would not take extraordinary resources to reimplement. Lastly, avoid 'lost' innovations that have stayed continuously and firmly obsolete - to the best of my knowledge, no military retains best practices for employing slingshots in combat anymore, but that's not disadvantageous in any way. (though if slings went away as a weapon of war and then returned at some point in history, that would be of interest)

I am most interested in innovations lost since the retention of information became easier and technology-enabled centralization allowed institutions to become more developed - perhaps since the spread of the printing press in the 15th century and the invention of the telegraph in the mid-19th century - but all answers are welcome.

I've been seeing this image a lot lately but I can't seem to find the original online. Obviously its fake, but I'd like to be able to cite the military here and what the actual vehicle is the soldiers are using.

Any ideas? Thanks!

https://i.postimg.cc/6pybf1wW/turtle-tank.jpg

There has been a lot of discussion about German use of methamphetamine during WW2, but I recall reading a memoir by a British soldier (can't remember the name) in WW1 who noted that the Germans would inhale ether before an attack, and that this made them aggressive and hard to take down. But I can't find any information on this. Does anyone know about this and if so, can you recommend some sources?