I know the U.S got help from France, etc but why couldn't India? What was special about the U.S?

I was just watching the battle scene from Saving Private Ryan. Clearly, bombardment wasn't enough to weaken the machine gun emplacements. But as I watched, I thought that obscuring the gunners' vision, even partially, seemed like it would have helped. Further, I have read and watched many accounts of the many unusual inventions and tactics the Allies developed and considered; so, surely, they must of that of 'smoke'. Can anyone tell us about why smoke wasn't used, or practical, and if any other crazy ideas to help the men landing on the beach that were considered?

A long time ago I had Shogun:Total War on my laptop. In one of the description for the Takeda Faction of the game, it stated something like "The charge of the Takeda cavalry is the ultimate test for even the bravest warrior!"

This really got me wondering. Usually Medieval Movies like Bravehart and RTS games like Age of Empires always show infantry with spears have a huge advantage over heavily armored cavalry elites like Knights and Samurais. As shown in Bravehart, all you have to do is wait for the Knights to charge than you pull your spears and hit the horses. In games like Rome:Total War and Age of Empires, its even more brutally easily to slaughter heavy cavalry-all you have to do is basically have the spearman attack the knights and they should be able to slaughter them with ease.

In fact this easy countering of Knights and elite heavy cavalry by spear infantry as portrayed in movies and games has become so imprinted into popular culture, that many people who don't study Medieval History into detail think that you just have to wait for the Knights to charge your spears and boom they'll get slaughtered as they hit the spears. Basically in their view you just need to hold the spear steadily and you'll be able to slaughter elite knights just like that,

However the quote from Shogun:Total War about the fending off the charge of the Takeda Cavalry(which are the best heavy mounted Samurais in the game) being the ultimate test of courage (even assuming you have spear men), made me wonder-is Heavy Cavalry as easy to destroy with spears as Bravehart and PC games portray?

I read of cases in Medieval Warfare were spearmen-and we're talking about well-trained ones with long spears- would panic and run away even though they assume those killing positions with the spears (like how the Scotts angled their stakes upward) easily. Or if they do hold it off at first, it seems that as the Knights keep coming, there are times when they would just panic and run away (even if it looks like they did slaughter Knights like in the movies and games).

Is it really that terrifying? So many people in today's world-including Military Historians who don't study Medieval Warfare in details and impose modern concepts on the past-think that with basic Discipline and the right position, the elite heavy cavalry should be easy to kill!

I mean things I read in the Napoleonic Warfare states that Horses would not charge at men with mere bayonets that are only add 2-3 inches to the rifles they're attached to.And these rifles with their bayonets are much shorters than the spears traditionally used in Medieval and Ancient Warfare!

So wouldn't the horses be too scared to charge at the Medieval Spearmen?

What exactly made the Knights (and other elite heavy cavalry like the Takeda Samurai) so scary to fight against, even if you're using anti-cavalry weapons that disciplined and trained spearmen would panic and abandon their formations?

I was just wondering. I read online a bit about, but just wanted to confirm, as I actually considering using it for some of the ways they did (if effective and true).

Are there any accounts of the sheer incredulity that an F4 tornado must have caused for people who had likely never seen a tornado in their life?

I know that some information exists, but is it based off of actual 14th-15th century texts that we have which predate contact with the West, or is our source on this literature similar to that of the Eddas for the Norse, texts written post-contact, and relating earlier stories, but likely influenced by European contact and Christianity? If the latter, do we have any idea what sort of effects that wrought?

[Literature/Poetry - North America - Late Medieval]

It seems that much of Stalinism was replicating Ivan the Terrible's Oprichniki.

Was he heavily influenced by Ivan?

It has become a bit of a trope in media that various people were on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the US left Vietnam during the war. But I'm curious as to who exactly would have been on the last one.

There was a textbook like book I read for college years ago that had a page listing something like 50 different things people blamed for the fall of rome. It was pretty much tongue in cheek and pointed out that people have used the fall of Rome to make political and social points for centuries. Anyhow, I'm going to be helping out on a lesson for 6th graders about "Why Rome fell?" and I thought it might be fun see again, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone have any idea where I could get such a list? I'm not looking for a "8 reasons why Rome fell with paragraphs of detailed research" sort of thing, that's easy. More of a list that includes the really ridiculous or obscure stuff, like "feminism".

I've never understood how harshly the POWs were treated under Japanese forces, why is that? Is it some sort of, "If I don't treat them bad, I'm not honorable" kind of deal?

Thanks

I believe that word had different connotations at different points in history?

when I was in high school it use to confuse me that they were called that in spite of Hitler being anti-communist.

Specifically, why was his name contracted in the title? Was it usual practice in the UK to just contract the proper name and surname, when someone was given a noble title?

I've done a bit of reading and watched a few documentaries but there never seems to be a clear answer. In my opinion countries like India and China were in a far better position to Industrialise. Any help understanding would be most appreciated.

I heard a discussion recently where someone argued that Franco worked to unify Spain, modernize it, establish a national language, etc. All of the readings I have seen hold him in a negative light.