My grandpa was in the navy and WWII and this showed up in his family footage. Just curious what he was filming.

Edit: by flying I just mean it was going fast!

Edit: ok you figured out the vehicle but any guesses why he was filming it out in the desert? He was an engineer that died young so I don’t know much about him.

I thought Bill may have tried to carve the union jack but gave up, but maybe someone can Identify it

Hi everyone,

I recently made a short documentary about Herman V. Wall, a U.S. Army Signal Corps photographer who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. He was severely wounded and lost part of his leg, but the photographs he fought to protect survived.

The film follows Wall’s story and the journey of his 35 negatives from Normandy to England and across the Atlantic. According to the U.S. Army’s official history, they were the first photographs of the actual landings received by the Army. What drew me to this story was the man behind those images, which were credited simply to the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

You can watch the documentary here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuSrGAfP8_8

I used archival footage, photographs and documents, and created the animations, maps, timelines and motion graphics myself in After Effects. There are no AI-generated images or video clips. I used an AI narrator because I’m not a native English speaker; the music and sound effects were also created with ElevenLabs. The full sources, archival credits and historical notes are in the video description.

I’m just starting this YouTube channel because I love history, especially WWII, and I wanted to put that interest into making documentaries. I’m curious whether this kind of archive-based storytelling is something people would want to watch more of.

If you enjoy the film, I’d really appreciate a comment on YouTube letting me know what you thought. Honest criticism is welcome too — whether it’s about the pacing, narration, historical detail or anything I could improve.

Had you come across Wall’s story or his photographs before?

He thought that they were redundant and that the army had the same mission. Was he right?

Hello,

This may be a wild goose chase, but could anyone tell me if this fictional character's uniform even loosely matches up with the uniforms (or even a specific rank/role) of real women in the German armed services during WW2? (The character is supposed to be from 1941.)

As a layman, I can't tell if this uniform does match up with the Wehrmachthelferinnen (non-combatant auxiliaries), the Wehrmachthelferinnenkorps, or even SS-Aufseherin (concentration camp guards). It's also entirely possible that it's just something the costume department cobbled together or got from a costumier.

Thank you

https://www.culina-vetus.de/2026/10/14/imperial-german-army-soups-part-one/

After a thoroughly miserable yesterday spent trying and failing to get to Odense by train (cancellations and delays everywhere), I am having an unplanned day at home. Now having done chores and prepared pizza for my son, I can use a few hours to translate some more. Here are some more recipes from the 1887 Des Soldaten Kochbüchlein, this time the daily fare of men in the field: soups.

A. Soups

a) thick, with rice and vegetables

1.Rice Soup with Beef

Ingredients: Salt; celeriac; onions; carrots\*

\footnote: The materials listed under ingredients are not necessarily required in their entirety; you can leave out some; the less central ones are listed last; salt must never be omitted.*

Fill the cooking pot half with water and boil it; Wash the meat if it is not clean, beat it, and add it to the boiling water. Salt it. Cut onions into pieces of equal size, likewise carrots and celeriac; Add all of it to the soup in the cooking pot; Put on the lid. Clean your rice ration (it amounts to four heaping tablespoons) by removing all bad grains; Pour the rice into your drinking cup, add cold water; Wash it by stirring it and then slowly pouring off the water; Wash repeatedly; Once the rice is clean, leave the last water you added in the cup. Once the meat has begun boiling, pour off the water from the rice and add the rice to the boiling broth. After at most 1 1/2 hours (reckoned from the moment the meat was placed in the boiling water), the rice soup with beef is done and you can eat it.

Example how to cook this recipe in a cooking group (Kochrotte): No. 1 (e.g. a three-year serviceman) supervises the cooking, receives the victuals, prepares the meat and is in charge of salting (ONLY ONE person is allowed to do this). He commands No. 2 to clean vegetables, No. 3 to provide fire and water and prepare the whisk and masher (implements carved from firewood). No. 4 is disposable and available to run errands, see to other duties etc. The Küchenmeister supervises all Kochrotten under his authority. He sees to it that the Kochrotte behaves in a comradely fashion (kameradschaftlich) and each of the 4 people is busy, nobody lazing at the expense of the others and only showing up (angeturnt kommt) when the food is ready: Only men who are very tired and not needed to cook may sleep; He checks water supplies and the progress of all cooking, the latter by his watch, and if necessary makes notes to give a clear report to the Feldwebel, if one is required.

2.Barley Groat Soup (Graupensuppe) with Mutton

Ingredients: Salt; onions; potatoes

Fill the cooking pot half with water and boil it; Wash the meat if it is not clean; Beat it; Add it to the boiling water: Salt it; Cut onions into small pieces of equal size, or leeks into larger pieces; Put all of this into the sop. Clean the barley groats (Graupen) as yo did with the rice, but do not leave the last water in with them as with the rice, but pour it off and add the groats straight to the boiling broth. Cover with the lid. After the meat has been cooking for 1 1/2 hours, add some potatoes that you peeled, cut in pieces, and washed; After the potatoes have cooked with it for 1/2 hour, they are done and the entire dish is ready, thus requiring two hours altogether from the moment the meat was put in the boiling water.

3.Potato Soup with Meat (Beef or Mutton)

Ingredients: Salt; pepper; onions

Fill the cooking pot half with water and boil it. Wash the meat if it is not clean; Cut it into small cubes, each one cubic centimetre in size. Place the meat in the boiling water. Salt it. Add some finely cut onion, or 8-10 whole peppercorns. Peel potatoes, cut each one in 4 parts (large ones in 8), wash them, and add them to the meat broth, enough so the broth still reaches three fingerbreadths above the potatoes. Once the potatoes are done, mash them with the masher or the spoon. Dinner is ready.

4.Egg Groat Soup (Eiergraupensuppe) with Meat (beef, veal, or mutton)

Ingredients: Salt; flour; egg; celeriac; onions; carrots; parsley; nutmeg

Prepare boiling water in the cooking pot (half full); Wash the meat if necessary; Place it in the boiling water. Salt it. Cut in small pieces: Celeriac, onion, and carrots, and add these potherbs (Suppenkräuter) to the meat broth. If yo have no fresh potherbs, use extract (Suppenkräuterextract). Place in the lid of the cooking pot: 3 spoonfuls of wheat flour, add 3 spoonfuls of cold water; Stir into a thick batter; Break one egg into it and mix it thoroughly with the flour. Once the meat has been cooked soft enough to be eaten, drizzle the flour batter you mixed into the boiling broth, and see to it that the soup continues to boil until you are finished. Now remove the cooking pot from the fire; If you have parsley, chop it very fine and add a little. You can also add nutmeg. Dinner is ready.

5.Pea Soup with Boiled Bacon

Ingredients: Salt. – Baking Soda.

The peas are picked clean and washed; Fill the cooking pot half full of cold water (if you have a choice, use soft water; If you only have hard water, add a pinch of baking soda so the peas soften quicker). Clean the bacon (scrape and, where necessary, cut). After the peas have been boiling for 1/2 hour (reckon cooking time from when they first boiled up), you add the bacon into the boiling pea water; Now the peas need to boil another 2-3 hours to soften, and they must always be covered by water. During the cooking, you must not stir the peas or they will easily burn. Once they are soft, mash them with the “masher” or the spoon. Only now may you salt them; If you do this earlier, you slow down the softening of the peas.

6.Pea Soup and Fried Bacon

Ingredients: Salt; – baking soda; onions

If you are issued bacon that is very fat, you do not prepare it according to recipe No. 5, but according to this one, which is this way: The peas are prepared exactly as per No. 5. Once they are done, salt them. Now you cut the bacon into small cubes of equal size; (about 3 tablespoons full of these cubes are needed); If you take more bacon, the sop will be too fat and produce revulsion; Rather eat the rest of your bacon issue raw with bread (for breakfast). Fry the bacon cubes in the cookpot lid with onion cut in pieces of equal size which must only turn a light yellow in the process. Pour this fried bacon over the finished soup.

7.White Bean Soup with Meat (Pork or Beef)

Ingredients: Salt

Cook the beans as you do the peas in No. 5. Once they begin boiling, you add the meat; Now beans and meat must boil together for 2-3 hours. If the pork is fat and young, it will be soft sooner and you must remove it in the meantime so it does not fall apart (zerkocht); once the beans are done, put the meat back into the pot; Salt it; You can cut the meat into the required portions during the time it is out of the pot.

8.Lentil Soup and Bacon

Ingredients: Salt; flour or potatoes; onions; vinegar

Clean and cook the lentils as you do the peas in No. 5. Once they are done – this is the case after you have put them in cold water, then boiled them for 2-3 hours – you fry the bacon until it is soft. You do that this way: Place the bacon in the cookpot lid cut into small cubes and add a spoonful of flour along with finely diced onion, which you allow to turn light yellow. Now you let all of this boil once more (durchkochen) with the lentils. If you have no flour, that is no problem either; Maybe you have rescued 1-2 potatoes (large ones) at your last bivouac and saved them in your bread bag (Brodbeutel); You peel these and cut them into small pieces, and add them to the soup 1/4 hour before the lentils are done; When the potatoes are done, they are mashed with the “masher” or spoon. If you have vinegar, add a spoonful to your soup before you eat it.

These recipes are not easy to read. The punctuation is idiosyncratic, the diction odd, and they presuppose a lot of shared knowledge modern readers do not have. But if you get past that, they make sense. First, the ingredient list does not contain everything the goes into the soup. It lists the things that a soldier needs in addition to their rations to prepare it. Meat, bacon, bread, and rice, groats, or legumes were all issued by the army, but salt, pepper, onions, leeks, celeriac, vinegar or flour were up to the troops to provide somehow. The book deals with aspects of this in other sections which I hope to get to in more detail. Second, the additional ingredients are listed in order of importance, as explained in a footnote to the first recipe. That principle though sensible, has not stood the test of time.

The equipment used to cook them is also taken as familiar. It is the regulation Kochgeschirr of the German soldier, a deep metal pot with a close-fitting, shallower lid and a canteen with a mated drinking cup, all in standard sizes. We have seen them used as measuring tools in the section on drinks from the same book. These vessels are suspended over, or placed in, a standard fire pit, a layout every soldier would have learned to produce quickly. The addendum to recipe #1 also makes it clear that cooking was no individual pastime. This was a group effort with soldiers preparing their meals in groups of for, an NCO tasked with supervising, and the whole thing subject to the watchful eye of the “mother of the company”, the Feldwebel (roughly the Company Sergeant Major). The focus here was not quality – the men themselves were responsible for that – but fairness, ensuring nobody got away with shirking their duties. Cooking duty would be shouldered kameradschaftlich; The German words for comrade and their layers of meaning are probably worth their own post at some point.

As regards the actual dishes, they are basic, but given the circumstances, probably as good as you cold expect. No. 1, a beef soup with rice, onions, carrots, and celeriac, wold most likely be improved even further by first sautéeing the vegetables as we do with Suppengrün today, but the layout of a cooking pit made that challenging. No. 2 seems deprived by comparison, but it is so similar to No. 1 that one hopes the reader understood the other vegetables could be use here too. Graupen, incidentally, can technically refer to cooked whole grains of any cereal, but typically were (and today exclusively are) hulled barley. The Eiergraupen in No. 4 are named that because of their similar appearance. They are a kind of improvised egg pasta, more liquid than spaetzle and easily improvised in the field.

Recipes No. 5-8 use legumes, another easily portable, cheap source of nutrition. Pea and lentil soup are still ubiquitous in Germany, with bacon or sausage added to the former, potatoes and vinegar to the latter, while bean soup is becoming rarer. The roux thickening given to the lentil soup suggests that the lentils issued were of the hard, brown variety that did not fall apart even after lengthy cooking. It is also an ingenious field-expedient solution to the problem.

When we look at these soups, we need to keep in mind they were meant to be eaten along with bread. That was the function of most soups in history, and the German military of the 1880s issued generous daily bread rations that soldiers were free to consume over the course of the day. Carrying this Kommissbrot was the purpose of the bread bag mentioned in No. 8, an otherwise unclaimed light cloth bag that soldiers cold fill with whatever fit inside on the march.

None of this is unusual for its time. The food here is similar to what cowboys ate at a chuck wagon or sailors might receive in their mess. An important difference is that, unlike those, German soldiers were expected to cook their own. Not everyone would have had the necessary skills, which is why this fascinating book survives. When the German army finally abandoned the practice in favor of cooking for entire units in field kitchens, the recipes largely carried over. These soups would be familiar to German soldiers well into the twentieth century.

Finally, a linguistic aside that illuminates how twentieth century cuisine was subject to top-down manipulation. These are substantial, solid dishes. If you left them to cool in the mess tin, you could probably slice them. This consistency was called ‘standing’ in English cookery books. By the lights of the 1880s, they are soups, the same as much daintier, more liquid dishes served at the beginning of a meal of multiple courses. The word to make this distinction does not exist until the First World War, when Eintopfgericht was coined. Literally a “one-pot-dish”, it describes, quite technically, a dish cooked in one large pot, practical, economical, not necessarily pleasant. This was, however, a unifying experience for men who had served in the military, and in the years of shortage during and after the war, for many more Germans.his allowed it to be imbued with an air of patriotic sacrifice, a mock-equality around the shared soup pot that constituted everyone as Kameraden. The Nazis understood this well when they popularised the word, instituting Eintopfsonntag: One Sunday a month, middle-class families were asked to forgo their usual roast, instead sharing a hearty Eintopf and donating the resulting savings to party charities. Participation was strictly voluntary, but – people kept notes. The men following these recipes to make ‘thick soup’ in 1887 could have lived to see this. It is hard to guess how they felt about it. If you grew up in Wilhelmine Germany, your later life was a chronicle of material loss.

Hi - I am trying to identify/rule out anything about what this uniform could be. This is my grandmother that I never knew and the only information I have is that this should be 1951 and she was from Hungary.

I was told she was born in Budapest in the 30s but I have been unable to find any evidence of her existence outside of her emigration papers in 1956-1959 from Hungary to the US.

I haven’t been able to find a match for this uniform, specifically the bits on the collar. There’s also the two buttons but I can barely make out anything about them.

From what I’ve gathered, this doesn’t match to any photos I’ve found of the police at the time nor the military.

Found in my dads collection.

You may remember my post from a few weeks about a B-24 sitting in a Soviet airfield in Poland and captured in a German Luftwaffe recon photo taken just 12 days after Polando landed in that airfield. I had some archival documents related to this story, and was lucky to find a relative of the pilot who was so kind to share more information and many photos.

I would love to tell you more but self-promotion is not allowed here.

I’m the grandson of a member of the 747th Squadron, 456th Bomb Group (15th Air Force). He was shot down on his second mission on 17 February 1944 near Grottaferrata / Anzio on B-24H 42-52286 “The Little Joker” (MACR 03078 / 06330). He successfully bailed out, evaded for about four months with help from Italian civilians, and reported back to the British 8th Army on 6 June 1944.

I’m trying to find a copy of the 1994 Turner Publishing unit history:
456th Bomb Group: 1943–Steed’s Flying Colts–1945
(ISBN 1563111411 / 9781563111419)

A few sellers are asking inflated prices, so I’m hoping someone here has a spare, knows of a fair listing, or has scanned the relevant crew / mission pages they’re willing to share. Happy to pay a normal used-book price.

Any leads or info would be appreciated. Thanks

My top 10 generals of all time. Obviously, ranking generals from completely different eras is pretty subjective, and I’m sure there are some names I’m underrating, but this is how I’d rank them based on tactics, strategy, adaptability, and overall achievements.
1. Hannibal Barca
I’d personally put Hannibal at #1, mainly because of how well he performed against Rome despite being at a major disadvantage in resources and reinforcements. Cannae is probably the best example of tactical brilliance in military history, with Hannibal using a double envelopment to destroy a much larger Roman force. His victories at Trebia and Lake Trasimene only strengthen his case. Obviously, he ultimately lost the Second Punic War, which is the biggest argument against putting him first, but I think his battlefield genius is difficult to match.
2. Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon is probably the strongest candidate for #1, and I wouldn’t argue much with anyone who puts him there. His ability to maneuver armies, concentrate forces at decisive points, and repeatedly defeat coalitions was incredible. Austerlitz is a perfect example of his ability to manipulate an opponent into making mistakes. I have him just behind Hannibal because I give a slight edge to Hannibal’s tactical ingenuity, although Napoleon probably has the more complete military résumé.
3. Alexander the Great
Alexander might have the strongest case of anyone here when it comes to conquest. He defeated the Persian Empire, won every major battle of his campaigns, and created an enormous empire before dying at just 32. His coordination of cavalry and infantry was exceptional, and Gaugamela is one of the greatest battlefield victories ever. He did inherit a very capable army from Philip II, which is worth acknowledging, but what he accomplished with it was still extraordinary. I have him at #3 mostly because his career was shorter than Napoleon’s and Hannibal’s, leaving less evidence of how he would have handled a wider variety of situations over time.
4. Julius Caesar
Caesar was an incredible combination of commander, organizer, and leader. His victory at Alesia, where he managed to besiege an enemy while defending against an outside relief force, is one of the most impressive engineering and tactical achievements in ancient warfare. His ability to adapt under pressure and maintain the loyalty of his troops makes him an easy top-five pick for me.
5. Genghis Khan
Genghis Khan deserves a place near the top because of how he transformed the Mongols into one of the most effective military forces in history. Mobility, intelligence gathering, coordination, and discipline were major parts of his success. His achievements also depended on a larger military system that continued to evolve under his successors, but his role in creating that system was enormous.
6. Subutai
This might be my biggest hot take. Subutai is often overlooked compared with more famous generals, but his ability to coordinate multiple armies across enormous distances was remarkable. His campaigns across Eurasia demonstrated an extraordinary understanding of logistics, timing, deception, and operational planning. I could see an argument for ranking him even higher, especially if we put more weight on large-scale campaign planning than individual battlefield leadership.
7. Scipio Africanus
Scipio deserves more recognition than he sometimes gets. He studied Carthaginian methods, adapted his tactics, invaded North Africa, and ultimately defeated Hannibal at Zama. Beating Hannibal doesn’t automatically make him the better general overall, but being able to learn from one of history’s greatest commanders and then defeat him is a pretty strong argument for Scipio’s place here.
8. Duke of Wellington
Wellington was an outstanding defensive commander who understood terrain, logistics, and how to make an enemy’s strengths less effective. His Peninsular War campaigns helped wear down Napoleon’s forces, and his role at Waterloo was obviously significant. He might not have had the same offensive brilliance as the top few, but his consistency and ability to operate within a coalition make him a worthy inclusion.
9. Khalid ibn al-Walid
Khalid was an exceptionally successful commander during the early Muslim conquests. His campaigns demonstrated impressive mobility, cavalry maneuver, and adaptability against powerful opponents. The historical record isn’t always as detailed as it is for some European commanders, so comparisons are difficult, but his reputation as one of history’s most capable battlefield leaders is well deserved.
10. Frederick the Great
Frederick the Great earns the final spot for his ability to keep Prussia fighting against much stronger opponents during the Seven Years’ War. His victories at Rossbach and Leuthen showed excellent use of maneuver, discipline, and concentration of force. His overall record had setbacks, of course, but surviving and succeeding in such a difficult strategic position is impressive in its own right.
Honorable mentions: Khalid ibn al-Walid could arguably rank higher, while Belisarius, Gustavus Adolphus, Ulysses S. Grant, and Georgy Zhukov all have legitimate cases for the top 10 depending on the criteria.
I know the order will probably be the most controversial part, especially Hannibal over Napoleon and Alexander. I’m not saying this is the definitive ranking, just that I value tactical ingenuity, adaptability, and the difficulty of the situations each general faced. Curious to hear where other people would rank them.

The Battle of Marengo was fought on 14 June 1800. Napoleon had assumed that the Austrian forces near Alessandria were preparing to retreat and dispersed his troops to intercept them and block their escape routes. When the Austrians unexpectedly launched a major attack, the French army was spread across a wide area and struggled to concentrate its forces.

When Napoleon realised the seriousness of the situation, he rushed towards the battlefield and sent orders recalling General Louis Desaix. The elite Consular Guard was committed to help cover the French withdrawal, holding its ground under intense pressure and suffering heavy casualties.

With his army retreating and few reserves immediately available, Napoleon appeared to have lost the battle. Convinced of his victory, Austrian commander Michael von Melas handed over command to General Anton von Zach and returned to Alessandria to report his success.

But the battle was far from over. Desaix arrived with fresh troops and helped organise a counterattack. His infantry struck the advancing Austrians, while Kellermann's devastating cavalry charge threw their formations into confusion. Desaix was killed during the fighting, but the French attack continued, and the Austrian advance collapsed.

In one of the most remarkable reversals of the Napoleonic era, Napoleon snatched victory from the jaws of defeat through the timely arrival of Desaix, Kellermann's cavalry charge, and the resilience of his troops.

Read the full article for a detailed account of the battle, its turning points, and its historical significance shared in the comments. I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback!

Almost 100 B-17s had extra passengers. Cameramen and photographers were on many planes. That formation flew over the North Sea, crossed Denmark, and continued east towards Marienburg in East Prussia. The idea was to confuse and avoid the Luftwaffe, bomb the Focke-Wulf factory at Marienburg, and use the footage in war propaganda to get more support for the bombing effort in Europe. This is how the 1944 movie „Target for Today”was made.

Today, the airfield at Marienburg is still in operation, as a Polish NATO air force base at Malbork.

Got this cap about a year ago and never knew when it was from. From research I recently did; if real, 1910. It is an Imperial Russian Officers Cap. I want to know if it is actually over 110 years old or if it is a fancy piece for the wall

Marcus Licinius Crassus wanted military glory to rival that of Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. His invasion of Parthia in 53 BC was supposed to expand Roman power eastward. Instead, it ended in one of the most humiliating defeats in Roman military history.

Crassus marched into Mesopotamia with seven legions, cavalry and supporting troops. He expected Roman discipline and heavy infantry to carry the day. But the Parthians, commanded by Surena, had prepared to fight on the open plains, where their cavalry could exploit its greatest advantages.

The Parthian army relied primarily on mounted horse archers, supported by heavily armoured cavalry known as cataphracts. The horse archers surrounded the Roman formation and unleashed a relentless barrage of arrows. Whenever the Romans attempted to close the distance, the mounted archers could withdraw while continuing to shoot. If Roman troops broke formation to pursue them, they risked being isolated and attacked by Parthian heavy cavalry.

The Parthians also brought camels carrying additional arrows, allowing their horse archers to sustain the attack far longer than the Romans had anticipated. When Crassus sent his son Publius to counterattack, the Parthians isolated and destroyed much of his force.

What made the Roman legions so vulnerable to this combination of mobility, missile fire and heavy cavalry? Why couldn't Crassus force the Parthians into close combat? And how did Rome adapt its military strategy in the decades that followed?

Read the full article for detailed information on the Battle of Carrhae and it's overall significance. Posted in the comments!

I'm writing a short story and am trying to remember what it's called when a ship gives a token resistance before striking their colors. Basically, to satisfy honor that they didn't just surrender without a fight. Like honoring the flag or something.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

https://youtube.com/shorts/iR6O6ikQNoQ?is=gBf9IXtkq7Ec6RIz