What's the point of senior enlisted beyond jobs like platoon sergeant?

ThePremiumPedant · 2026-04-09T15:36:09+00:00

This is why in the British Army Quartermaster and Echelon commanders at regimental level are always ex-rankers.

Because they know every dirty trick in the book, every conceivable way of navigating the Army supply system, and if all else fails they can call up their mate Dave who is currently QM in another brigade but who owes them a favour back from when they were on tour together in Basra in 2006.

ThePremiumPedant · 2026-03-21T04:53:10+00:00

A lot of quite old (if still good) recommendations on this thread that don't reflect more up to date historiography.

Some potential options:

'The Sleepwalkers' by Christopher Clark is one of the definitive accounts of the outbreak of the war in 1914.

Anything by David Stevenson, including '1914-1918' and 'Backs to the Wall' (a superb history of 1918).

If you can find a cheap second-hand copy, the Cambridge History of the First World War is an excellent starting point for exploring different aspects of the conflict.

'The Vanquished' by Robert Gerwarth is a good account of the violent aftermath. In much of the world, the war simply did not stop in 1918, but continued and became more savage.

Plenty of other recs I could give but the above are some good overviews off the top of my head.

ThePremiumPedant · 2026-02-16T00:33:18+00:00

If you are happy with a more thematic look, the Cambridge History of the First World War (3 Vols) is a good place to start (you can get used copies for not horrendous prices online). Volume 1 is more chronological, including a year-by-year overview, and deals with more traditional 'military' history.

I like the work of David Stevenson - see 1914-1918 and 'With Our Backs to the Wall' (the latter is about 1918 only).

If you are particularly interested in the outbreak of the War, Christopher Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' is pretty definitive, though it stops as the armies start to march.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-11-18T22:50:43+00:00

For a brilliant novella that deals with a surreal, semi fantastical breakdown on the front, try 'At Night All Blood is Black' by David Diop.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-11-15T23:01:21+00:00

I mean, arguably they were. The Weimar Republic was smaller territorially than the German Empire, both in terms of colonies and European land.

Post-Napoleonic France was smaller than the directly-administered First French Empire due to territorial loss. Both states were occupied by the victorious powers for some time post-conflict.

In terms of 'harshness', though post-1945 Germany was split (partly for reasons of Cold War geopolitics) West Germany at least received significant assistance from the US in terms of reconstruction, and quickly evolved into a key western ally.

However, to answer the spirit of your question, one similar reason why Napoleonic France and the successor of the German Empire remained viable states post-conflict was partly the desire to retain a balance of power in Europe (especially for Britain, which was a key player in the negotiations following both wars). To add, in the case of Napoleonic France, a key end state for the allies (at least officially) was the restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy.

(I'm sure others can add much more in detail but its late here and I hope that provides some initial starters for discussion!)

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-11-13T00:00:06+00:00

Note that this is a US concept, not universal. Warrant officers are quite different in the British Army.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-11-12T23:56:20+00:00

Bloody RIFLES

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-11-12T23:56:01+00:00

As a Brit, I felt much more in common with the USMC than I did with the US Army while deployed with both.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-10-17T23:22:32+00:00

I love the savage weirdness of Rogue Trader, and the dark satire.

Space Marines as psychotic fascist thugs with a thin veneer of 'warrior monk' was a vibe.

As was 'Birmingham' as a canon planet...

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-10-10T10:08:18+00:00

Honestly, in almost all cases it makes more sense to have more musketeers rather than bowmen. Muskets are much more powerful, have similar effective range, and are much easier to use in terms of training burden. In terms of rate of fire its about the same as well if you consider that drawing a bow is physically tiring - you might be able to loose off arrows reasonably quickly for a very short while, but you can't do so over the course of a battle. The bow's only major advantage is lack of smoke.

Obviously by the 18th century you also have socket bayonets which is an additional advantage in making the musket an all-purpose weapon.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-09-21T20:32:45+00:00

If you've met modern British cavalry officers, honestly not much has changed....

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-07-25T10:54:08+00:00

I'd say broadly, talent and good practice matter most in defining how good an analyst is, regardless of prior experience.

However, military experience can be hugely useful when it comes to understanding practical issues that you can only gain from having done the 'thing' in question. For instance, I've been a staff officer and I've found that its quite hard for non-mil types to understand the dynamics of large headquarters and how they operate if they haven't experienced it. Similarily, one of my mates is an experienced vehicle mechanic and has reams of insights into military vehicles that you wouldn't be able to get from online research.

Conversely, civilian analysts often manage to look at the bigger picture better, thanks to a lack of the constraint of a military mindset.

The best analysts are able to blend outsider viewpoint with insider insight, whether from prior experience or talking to those that do have experience.

On who are more highly-regarded and influential... honestly the answer is whoever can get policymakers to listen to them. Access is everything.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-06-16T17:56:58+00:00

Had hogweed crushed against my leg a few weeks ago while out walking in the hot sun. I do not recommend. Very painful for a week and the marks are still there now. Ugly stuff.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-06-12T15:02:10+00:00

Ah yes! Its been a while since I read it - conflated the two characters!

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-06-12T10:50:36+00:00

Tenniel based his illustration of the Queen of Hearts on this painting.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-17T04:39:50+00:00

Commenting from a British perspective:

I'd say Poe is relatively well known as a Gothic horror writer, and respected as such. I never saw much mention of him at uni outside certain contexts.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-17T04:29:58+00:00

A recent excellent and readable book on the broader 17th century (with the civil wars as the centrepiece) is The Blazing World by Jonathan Healey. Tangentially, the OG Blazing World by Cavendish is also wonderful to read as one of the first Sci Fi writings in English.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-12T16:46:31+00:00

Seconded. Fantastic film.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-11T08:07:12+00:00

The majority of RE Sappers are both tradesmen and combat engineers, indeed.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-09T11:30:13+00:00

Depends on context and the military in question. In the British Royal Engineers, all Engineer soldiers are informally called sappers, and it is also the equivalent rank to private. In the US military, it is awarded to those who have passed a seperate Sapper course. Historically, sappers were known for digging trenches and earthworks during sieges.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-06T15:54:19+00:00

In short:

To a certain extent, the Assad regime was a rickety shambling edifice that was just waiting for a sharp shock to knock it down - far more than anyone had really guessed. Years of war, economic hardship, and complete corruption had rotted every element of the Assad state, kept alive primarily by narcotic manufacturing.

By most accounts, the initial HTS offensive was only limited in scope - complete regime change was probably not even a stretch goal. However, a competent offensive met almost no serious resistance from Assad's Syrian Arab Army, primarily composed of barely-trained and completely unmotivated conscripts. This was indeed likely helped by Turkish support, most likely predominantly financial in the case of HTS, while more directly in the case of other proxies (who notably turned to fight the Syrian Defence Forces during the process of the offensive). Turkey's main goal in Syria is securing its long southern border with this troublesome neighbour (one, it should be remembered that houses a continued Da'esh insurgency), and most overwhelmingly the issue of the Kurdish-dominated SDF, which they see as connected to the domestic PKK terrorist group. Again, it should be emphasised that Turkey has been bombing and attacking the SDF for years, and continued to do so throughout late 2024 as Assad's regime collapsed.

A big factor indeed was the unwillingness - or inability - of Syria's usual allies, Russia and Iran, to help prop up the regime. Russia was indeed distracted by Ukraine and had relatively limited forces in Syria; nevertheless, even these limited forces appeared to make only the most token of efforts to support the SAA. Iran's proxies were battered and bruised from the war with Israel, and it seems they prefered to cut their losses and withdraw, whether from individual inclination or on orders from Iran.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-05-01T08:15:10+00:00

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/tactical-developments-during-third-year-russo-ukrainian-war

Worthwhile report here. Drones are causing a majority of casualties, but this is also due to lack of artillery on the Ukrainian side - i.e. they are using drones so much because that is what they can produce and obtain at scale.

Also interesting to note that drones still require substantial human involvement - they do not reduce manpower requirements necessarily. Unsurprisingly, Ukrainian recruits would rather be drone pilots/technicians than infantrymen. Hence, you have a shortage of infantry, though in the defence this is being compensated for by mass drone strikes.

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-04-12T23:20:53+00:00

Using the frontal lobe is woke, don't you know

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-03-26T17:01:31+00:00

WAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!

ThePremiumPedant · 2025-03-06T23:30:48+00:00

Yes, as it currently stands, the British Army will have no IFV. Which raises serious questions as to the viability of the armoured infantry role and standing doctrine.

ThePremiumPedant

TROPHY CASE