Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

 Soladrin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.

This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.


The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.

The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.

Shame that's basically all of Europe...

 Soladrin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Knights did not need help mounting their horses because their armor was too heavy.

This one has driven me crazy since I was a kid, right along with the related myth that if a knight in plate armor fell down, he wouldn't be able to stand back up without help. The way I've heard some people describe it made knights in plate armor sound like complete morons for wearing equipment that negated almost all of their advantages and transformed them into sitting ducks the second they tripped or fell off a horse.


The truth was a trained knight could run, jump, mount and dismount a horse and probably even do a cartwheel if he wanted to while fully armored. Armor made for jousting was more restrictive, but the armor people wore into battle was meant to allow for movement.

The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.

That still sounds pretty mythical to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

I think the only way they'd be unexplored is if they were also undiscovered.

Wait, what if... the unexplored bunkers are mythical. Maybe templar just super trolled the thread and none of us realized it!

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?

maybe...

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait, what if... the unexplored bunkers are mythical. Maybe templar just super trolled the thread and none of us realized it!

What if the part about them being unexplored is true, but the part about them being bunkers is the myth? Woah!


It's like there are these unexplored things, but we don't know what they are! They might be an underground structure of some kind!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?

Switzerland?


Oh! Too soon?

Those damn Swiss. Seriously, somebody should invade them just to open all the unclaimed bank accounts.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?

The vatican.

 Soladrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?

The vatican.

That's how the pope got to retire early.

 d-usa wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

Where do you think all the missing Nazi gold is hidden?

The vatican.

That's how the pope got to retire early.

Too soon guys! Too soon!

 Hordini wrote:
What if the part about them being unexplored is true, but the part about them being bunkers is the myth? Woah!


It's like there are these unexplored things, but we don't know what they are! They might be an underground structure of some kind!

Palindrome wrote:
They didn't just use cavalry in Russia, they made extensive use of cavalry (in a mounted infantry role) in Western Europe during the early war period. There was even a SS cavalry division. Outside of Panzer and Panzergrenadier units almost all German transport was horsedrawn, even by the end of the war.

I agree on the extensive use of horses in logistics (once again, contrary to the myths German logistics was really old school), but I'm not sure about the claim of mounted infantry in use in Western Europe in the early war.

From my understanding the Germans used mounted infantry throughout Eastern Europe, but in Western Europe the only mounted infantry were a regiment of Cossaks, deployed there late in the war.

France is not a cowardly nation, historically they have won more wars than England. They didn't perform well against Germany in WWII, but then no one did until the German Blitzkreig doctrine started to break down and counters were developed.

The blitzkreig doctrine is actually something of a myth of its own. The German methodology was something closer to an aggressive advance, on which several commanders (notably Guderian and Rommel under him) realised they had decisive breakthrough and were able to exploit under the principles of Auftragstaktik. Had blitzkreig been properly conceived by the German high command then it is probable that the Germans would not have had to delay their advance on Dunkirk.

Even in Barbarossa the German method is something not really that different to the old Prussian doctrines of maneouvre warfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That's not really a myth. Your description of events has been widely accepted for a long time.

Sure, among economic historians and those who read them.

But ask random people in the street, ask them what caused the rise of the Nazis. To the extent that you get any kind of coherent answer, that answer is very likely to include hyperinflation. That's what is meant by the term "popular myth" - a myth among the general population.

In recent years, a lot of historical revisionism has emerged that paints Britain in the 1930s, not as a struggling country at the mercy of Germany, but a global superpower that made more guns than the Americans (couldn't believe it myself, but it's true) exported more oil than any other nation, and had half of south America churning out grain and beef for it. Amongst other things. The reason for Britain's appeasement to Hiter was the fact that the Battle of the Somme was only twenty odd years in the past, and the memory was still too strong for the public.

While the British were most certainly not psychologically ready for another war, they were also quite unprepared for one in terms of force projection, and that continued through the 1930s. Modernisation and readiness only began in earnest in the wake of Munich.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Small-pox blankets. There is no concrete evidence that there was ever an intentional use of blankets to spread small pox. The myth exists as a result of a letter from a British colonel in the French-Indian wars who suggested using blankets from an infected fort to weaken the native population. His idea was soundly rejected by his superior. However the events are muddled as the native groups did die several months later of a small pox outbreak. Though this could have resulted from a normal outbreak. Despite being at best, conjecture, the idea is regularly invoked.

Wow, I didn't know that was a myth. Thanks.

The M1 Garand cannot be reloaded until its current clip is empty. This is a myth spawned by Call of Duty and Medal of Honor and was pervasive among gamers for a very long time. A quick google search will reveal instructions on how to manually replace the clip for the M1.

Sure, it spawned from Garand being fiddly to remove a clip that wasn't fully spent. To the point that many soldiers would actually fire off the extra round or two than go through the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time.

Galileo wasn't exectuted. He was placed under house arrest, and died of natural causes as an old man.

But yeah, the primary reason for his house arrest was that he provoked Pope Urban, pretty openly ridiculing the guy. Not that it's okay for anyone to have the power to punish someone just for being rude, but it's a long way from the popular story that he was punished just for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
The thing about NASA spending a ton of money on a space pen, and the Russians just using a pencil:

Both the US and USSR used pencils, greace pencils, etc. Both switched to pens because graphite dust, shavings, etc. were dangerous in space. The US just switched to fancy pens first.

And the pen was invented by a clever civilian and donated to NASA, costing them nothing.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time.

Columbus discovered America.

Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.

Egyptians built the pyramids and they are less than 4000 years old.

Don't get me started on religious myths that didn't happen....

Galieleo was not executed He was tried for heresey because he would not take back his discovery and put on house arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Also the pyramids were indeed built by egyptians...

The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

 Cheesecat wrote:
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?

 GalacticDefender wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?

Who knows. My guess is drugs. Its gotta be drugs.

"America deserves all the credit for winning WWII and saving Europe's ass."

Well we did save Europe's ass, from the Russians.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
All insane conspiracy theories aside, I think it is kind of sad that some people don't see ancient humans as being well equipped or intelligent enough to be able to build things like the pyramids. I mean, seriously, where did the aliens myth even come from?

Racism, originally. All the ancient wonders of Europe started to look pretty gakky compared to those massive pyramids. So people started inventing higher races that must have helped the 'lowly' Egyptians to build them. Over time the racism dropped away, but people didn't want to ditch all the crazy imaginative stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we did save Europe's ass, from the Russians.

Yep.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.

While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
seriously guys are there still unexplorer Nazi bunkers

If I recall correctly, there were some facilities that were demolished prior to their capture by the allies, some of which were at least partially underground, and excavation was deemed too expensive or difficult for any potential reward, so whatever might be buried/sealed off in them, perhaps. Of course, I also recall that my source on this was some parascience lunacy about aliens or levitation technology or something like that which happened to be playing in the background while I was doing something else, which was no doubt more important, but less memorable.

 GalacticDefender wrote:


Galieleo was not executed He was tried for heresey because he would not take back his discovery and put on house arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

He might have been thinking about Giordano Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno that no matter what some guys might think was not burned at the stake for his ideas about the Earth not being the center of the Universe. A Catholic priest that starts doubting that Jesus is the son of God in public has bigger issues with the Inquisition that some astronomical theories that never were contested by the church.

M.

 Cheesecat wrote:
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

Illegal aliens.

From Mexico.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

Illegal aliens.

From Mexico.

Frazzled, quit being all old man in here, nobody is talking about Las Vegas.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we did save Europe's ass, from the Russians.

Yep.

That's true enough... Though Europe's wasn't the only ass on the line that time.

 sebster wrote:

From my understanding the Germans used mounted infantry throughout Eastern Europe, but in Western Europe the only mounted infantry were a regiment of Cossaks, deployed there late in the war.

The German 1st Cavalry Divison fought in Holland and France in 1940.

The blitzkreig doctrine may not have explicitly existed but I think its a good description of the German's extensive use of mobility and concentrated armoured attacks with close combined arms support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
[ Had blitzkreig been properly conceived by the German high command then it is probable that the Germans would not have had to delay their advance on Dunkirk.

That was due to to British (and French) feats of arms

Of course if the British and French high commands had been paying more attention to how the German army was evolving in the post war years France would probably never have fallen.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.

While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides.

Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves.

What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.

Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?

 Polonius wrote:
It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.

THis.

I'll also point out the extent of disease in North and South America is a heavily disputed issue on nearly all sides. Some historians point out that numerous wars fought between colonial powers and their allies with non-allied native groups would have been impossible if 99% of all natives got killed by disease. Trade routes in some regions were not developed enough to spread it, and in other areas, like the still existent Mayan culture, disease was present but didn't have a major impact despite fairly large settlements and extensive trade routes. No one can agree on how much the Aztecs suffered at the hands of disease or at the hands of their own internal and external political problems. Archeologists can't decide if the evidence they have supports massive death tolls or or minor ones. Most likely (as with all things) the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That Galileo was burned because he believed the earth moved around the sun. He was executed because he was an a-hole and made enemies all over the place. Just like the round world bit this was pretty common knowledge at the time..

The belief that Galileo was executed. He was actually placed under house arrest.