Nothing ruins a historical war fiction novel than....

[AndySfromVA]

It annoys me when I see wacky errors of history in novels, which happens all the time. Not only in a military context but also with respect to dates, aspects of everyday culture supposedly available at the time and, worst of all, the historically erroneous use of slang. Language changes over time and characters in a novel taking place in the 1950's shouldn't talk like people in the present day, but many writers don't pay attention to things like that.

[RangerJoe]

What really insult me is when people complain about the word usage from before by equating it to the word usage today when the meaning and usage has changed.

[AndySfromVA]

I assume you're not referring to anything in my comment.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

Check this frak out from Sword Woman and Other Historical Adventures

Such men I had never seen. Like him I had slain, they were tall and massive with red or yellow hair and beards and fierce light eyes. But they were not clad in mail from head to foot like the Crusaders. They wore horned helmets and shirts of scale mail which came almost to their knees but left their throats and arms bare, and most of them wore no other armor at all.

Robert E. Howard is overrated.

He lived for all his life in a small Texas town with limited resources and still he tried to do the best possible research for his historical tales. I guess we can't pretend perfection from someone who wrote one hundred years ago.

Anyway, Howard's strength is in the writing. No one could describe a weird landscape, a battle or an action scene the way he did. Howard was less baroque than Lovecraft (and, in a way, less literate), but he was both rich and direct in his writings (writings that, it is worth remembering, include MUCH MORE than Conan - Conan actually being a series that he began and left unfinished during the last years of his brief life).

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: AndySfromVA

I assume you're not referring to anything in my comment.

I was not and I still am not. In particular, I think of Tom Sawyer and especially Huck Finn.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

Check this frak out from Sword Woman and Other Historical Adventures

Such men I had never seen. Like him I had slain, they were tall and massive with red or yellow hair and beards and fierce light eyes. But they were not clad in mail from head to foot like the Crusaders. They wore horned helmets and shirts of scale mail which came almost to their knees but left their throats and arms bare, and most of them wore no other armor at all.

Robert E. Howard is overrated.

He lived for all his life in a small Texas town with limited resources and still he tried to do the best possible research for his historical tales. I guess we can't pretend perfection from someone who wrote one hundred years ago.

Anyway, Howard's strength is in the writing. No one could describe a weird landscape, a battle or an action scene the way he did. Howard was less baroque than Lovecraft (and, in a way, less literate), but he was both rich and direct in his writings (writings that, it is worth remembering, include MUCH MORE than Conan - Conan actually being a series that he began and left unfinished during the last years of his brief life).

Hear hear!! I grew up reading Robert E. Howard. He may or may not have done very well on historical accuracy, but he could damn well spin a yarn that would keep me mesmerized. His short stories on the Crusades were gems, if you ask me. If he was writing in the day of the internet, or easy international travel, or easy research, then I may be less forgiving. But, from what I understand he basically grew up poor and probably wasn't very "international".

If they made movies that followed his stories more truly, and used some of the quotes in his books, those movies would be far better.

I still go back and re-read his Conan short stories. All safely tucked away on my Kindle. not to mention his El Borak stories, some Bran Mak Morn stories, and his Strange Tales (I think that was the name of the magazine that published a lot of his stories).

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Gilmer
But, from what I understand he basically grew up poor and probably wasn't very "international".

He wasn't "poor", and he actually was considered "worldly", but strictly by the people who lived in backwater Texas around 1930. After all he was the author "published by New York magazines". He, however, always refused to move to more cosmopolitan places: Howard's windows on the World were his pen pals.

I still go back and re-read his Conan short stories. All safely tucked away on my Kindle. not to mention his El Borak stories, some Bran Mak Morn stories, and his Strange Tales (I think that was the name of the magazine that published a lot of his stories).

And some wonderful stories for the "Cthulhu Mythos" - which, it is worth mentioning, weren't written only by Lovecraft, but by a whole group of writers who considered them "open source" or such. Lovecraft himself wrote Howard's eulogy when he took his life.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

But the Sherman WASN'T meant to fight enemy armour. Sadly it was a doctrine, that wasn't well thought through.

Too true. It was supposed to be the tank destroyers job. Patton understood that but others did not.

I request a source. Because Nicholas Moran here explains with scans from doctrine manuals (tank destroyer one too) that it is tank's job to support infantry in offense against whatever the enemy has along the way, and tank destroyer defends against attacking enemy armour. And war time films, like this, say the same thing.

Yes, Mr. Moran mentions a general who said tank should not fight another tank. Wasn't popular opinion at the time and didn't make it to doctrine. Like enemy would care about the general's opinion anyway.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

But the Sherman WASN'T meant to fight enemy armour. Sadly it was a doctrine, that wasn't well thought through.

Too true. It was supposed to be the tank destroyers job. Patton understood that but others did not.

I request a source. Because Nicholas Moran here explains with scans from doctrine manuals (tank destroyer one too) that it is tank's job to support infantry in offense against whatever the enemy has along the way, and tank destroyer defends against attacking enemy armour. And war time films, like this, say the same thing.

Yes, Mr. Moran mentions a general who said tank should not fight another tank. Wasn't popular opinion at the time and didn't make it to doctrine. Like enemy would care about the general's opinion anyway.

The Army didn’t intend for its own tanks to specialize in defending against enemy panzers. The new armor branch wanted to focus on the same kind of bold armored attacks the Germans were famous for.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... e-or-17527

This one as well, although it does not like me to cut and paste from it:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416377.pdf

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Army didn’t intend for its own tanks to specialize in defending against enemy panzers. The new armor branch wanted to focus on the same kind of bold armored attacks the Germans were famous for.

That's what I said!

[HunterICX]

ORIGINAL:
I hate bad research in historical war fiction..hate it..

Reason I don't read them in the first place, nothing would suck me out of a book quicker the moment my brain goes into full history buff mode screaming at the page for being wrong.

[Edmon]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yep, that's pretty irritating, although its worse when that happens and the book you've bought is supposed to be historical fact......[:(]

"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yep, that's pretty irritating, although its worse when that happens and the book you've bought is supposed to be historical fact......[:(]

"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

warspite1

Yes, that was a particularly bad one. I mean come on, do your research! Everyone knows that, from 1915 onwards, mobile phones were confiscated before the troops left Blighty for Flanders.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yep, that's pretty irritating, although its worse when that happens and the book you've bought is supposed to be historical fact......[:(]

"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

[&o][&o][&o]

Just like the guys in camo who would wear a watch that beeps, or use velcro which you can hear when it is pulled apart.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yep, that's pretty irritating, although its worse when that happens and the book you've bought is supposed to be historical fact......[:(]

"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

warspite1

Yes, that was a particularly bad one. I mean come on, do your research! Everyone knows that, from 1915 onwards, mobile phones were confiscated before the troops left Blighty for Flanders.

I didn't know that! [X(]

How would they ever get anyone to volunteer for the armed forces if they were not allowed to use their phones. Besides, the phones are needed to keep the troops updated on the progress of the offensive. And to be able to protest if the other side does something unfair. Also, the camera is needed to document the trench I am in because the bottom of it is muddy and I am expected to stand in it!

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Edmon

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yep, that's pretty irritating, although its worse when that happens and the book you've bought is supposed to be historical fact......[:(]

"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

warspite1

Yes, that was a particularly bad one. I mean come on, do your research! Everyone knows that, from 1915 onwards, mobile phones were confiscated before the troops left Blighty for Flanders.

I thought that they were stolen from the passed out, drunken soldiers when they were lying in the gutters in London. After all, that is why the public houses closed in the afternoon, is it not? So the soldiers might wake up in time to catch their train?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Edmon




"It was a dark and terrible night in the trenches. The horror of the days fighting was made even worse at night, where the use of mobilephones was forbidden in case it would attract the attention of enemy bombers..."

warspite1

Yes, that was a particularly bad one. I mean come on, do your research! Everyone knows that, from 1915 onwards, mobile phones were confiscated before the troops left Blighty for Flanders.

I didn't know that! [X(]

How would they ever get anyone to volunteer for the armed forces if they were not allowed to use their phones. Besides, the phones are needed to keep the troops updated on the progress of the offensive. And to be able to protest if the other side does something unfair. Also, the camera is needed to document the trench I am in because the bottom of it is muddy and I am expected to stand in it!

warspite1

The British had no choice but to bring in the ruling. During 1914 and early 1915 the majority of deaths on the Western Front were attributed to soldiers going over the top, charging toward the enemy, but stopping to take a selfie when halfway there. When the scale of the problem was realised there was no choice; the phones had to go.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes, that was a particularly bad one. I mean come on, do your research! Everyone knows that, from 1915 onwards, mobile phones were confiscated before the troops left Blighty for Flanders.

I didn't know that! [X(]

How would they ever get anyone to volunteer for the armed forces if they were not allowed to use their phones. Besides, the phones are needed to keep the troops updated on the progress of the offensive. And to be able to protest if the other side does something unfair. Also, the camera is needed to document the trench I am in because the bottom of it is muddy and I am expected to stand in it!

warspite1

The British had no choice but to bring in the ruling. During 1914 and early 1915 the majority of deaths on the Western Front were attributed to soldiers going over the top, charging toward the enemy, but stopping to take a selfie when halfway there. When the scale of the problem was realised there was no choice; the phones had to go.

Why didn't they simply ask their opponents to take pictures for them? And then post them online for everyone to see? [&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm



I didn't know that! [X(]

How would they ever get anyone to volunteer for the armed forces if they were not allowed to use their phones. Besides, the phones are needed to keep the troops updated on the progress of the offensive. And to be able to protest if the other side does something unfair. Also, the camera is needed to document the trench I am in because the bottom of it is muddy and I am expected to stand in it!

warspite1

The British had no choice but to bring in the ruling. During 1914 and early 1915 the majority of deaths on the Western Front were attributed to soldiers going over the top, charging toward the enemy, but stopping to take a selfie when halfway there. When the scale of the problem was realised there was no choice; the phones had to go.

Why didn't they simply ask their opponents to take pictures for them? And then post them online for everyone to see? [&:]

warspite1

A few did - or at least attempted to - in the early days. The trouble was, no sooner had one begun uttering the line "I say, excuse me old boy, but would you mind awfully doi........." than one tended to get sawn in half by a ruddy great machine gun....

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

The British had no choice but to bring in the ruling. During 1914 and early 1915 the majority of deaths on the Western Front were attributed to soldiers going over the top, charging toward the enemy, but stopping to take a selfie when halfway there. When the scale of the problem was realised there was no choice; the phones had to go.

Why didn't they simply ask their opponents to take pictures for them? And then post them online for everyone to see? [&:]

warspite1

A few did - or at least attempted to - in the early days. The trouble was, no sooner had one begun uttering the line "I say, excuse me old boy, but would you mind awfully doi........." than one tended to get sawn in half by a ruddy great machine gun....

Ah. That explains it. How dumb. Always a risk for misunderstandings when you do it in real life. They should, of course, created a friendgroup online beforehand and agreed on a time and place for the event. And arranged for proper documentation as well. Maybe even make a live coverage out of it? Hashtag WemeetinFlanders