|
Trouble Man posted:I wonder what a "modern" navy would look like if the Pacific War never happened. That really depends on how reactionary the staffs of Every Navy in the World were. It's possible that if the carrier fleet had been in port they'd have been able to scramble fighters and actually reduce the damage the Japanese did, although that's unlikely, given that the carriers would still be stationary targets. US carriers could put planes into the air without steaming into the wind, right?
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Another alleged threat to carriers, supersonic ASMs like the Sunburn, have the same problem of limited range. A surface ship or aircraft attempting to use them to attack a carrier with them would probably be detected and destroyed before it was in range, and camouflaged coastal installation could only rely on the carrier coming within a couple hundred kilometers of the site to be useful. Realistically they'd have to rely on a vessel coming withing something like 20km of the site to be useful. It's nice to have a missile with a 300km range, but if you can't turn your radar on for fear of getting blown up then your choices are limited to engaging targets within visual range or firing blindly at where you think a ship might be and hoping the missile finds it. It's the same for ASBMs. You can in theory hit anything within 2000km, but only if you can find it first. And modern nuclear carriers may be huge, but they aren't slow. They have an enormous amount of power. They can outrun most of their escorts and perform some terrifyingly violent maneuvers when they need to.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What assets? I read one of the articles that that article linked to and it seems to indicate that the S3 might be one but no more details are given... I'm assuming Princeton is a Ticonderoga class cruiser, the US has like 60 of those More like 22 CGs left, and 7 more will probably be thrown out in 2013/14. How's that for not maintaining/decommissioning assets?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
For a military that takes in nearly a trillion dollars a year in funding it sure seems like each branch of the US armed forces is in a state of some pretty noticeable decay. Where the gently caress is the money going? (Yes yes I know, into the pockets of defense contractors.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Well the USN is starting to experince what has been happening to the Royal Navy since the nineties. At least you guys might get to keep your aircraft carriers.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:I wonder what a "modern" navy would look like if the Pacific War never happened. Before the Pacific War even started, Admirals were appreciating the use of carrier aircraft. However, the problem was that the World War II fleet carrier wasn't anything like the modern supercarriers of today. A WWII carrier might carry something along the lines of 20 fighters, 20 light bombers, and 20 torpedo craft. So the amount of strike power was quite limited. Remember these are propeller driven, single engine bombers, carrying one 250 lb bomb each. You're not going to be doing any significant amount of damage with 20 small bombs. What the Japanese figured out, was "Hey, to make up for the lack of firepower per carrier, let's combine every fleet carrier we have into one fast strike group!" That's what they did for Pearl Harbor, 6 fleet carriers putting up hundreds of fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes in one big wallop of a strike.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:04
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Where the gently caress is the money going? (Yes yes I know, into the pockets of defense contractors.) Personnel: pensions, healthcare, training, housing, pay, etc
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Personnel: pensions, healthcare, training, housing, pay, etc Any clue how much is spent per year on private contractors (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
So did the Hundred Year's War actually last a hundred years or was it more like several smaller wars strung together? Also, why do I hear more about how bad the 30 years war was - you'd think compared to one that lasted 100 years it would be a drop in the bucket.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:39
|
|
Logiwonk posted:So did the Hundred Year's War actually last a hundred years or was it more like several smaller wars strung together? Also, why do I hear more about how bad the 30 years war was - you'd think compared to one that lasted 100 years it would be a drop in the bucket. The 30 Years War was the entire area of central Europe getting heavy involved at every single point, plus religion AND independence being fought for.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
The 100 Years War was a dynastic conflict between the Plantagenet and Valois, over which family would hold the French throne. These military struggles over noble titles could be very dangerous for peasants caught between the armies, and the English sometimes made use of a raiding tactic (chevauchee) that involved pillaging and burning swaths of countryside. But as a general rule civilians were not the target. It was an affair between aristocratic families, not directly involving the peasantry, and each side intended to rule France and so had a certain incentive not to wreck it too much. The 30 Years War was a civil war between religious factions in the Holy Roman Empire, interfered with from time to time by foreign powers. Much of the fighting consisted of mercenary armies from one part of Central Europe marching through another part, pillaging all the food and valuables they could find, and massacring any noncombatants in their path. Civil wars are usually the most brutal because the stakes are so high, and the religious issue made the 30 Years War even more vicious.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Logiwonk posted:So did the Hundred Year's War actually last a hundred years or was it more like several smaller wars strung together? Also, why do I hear more about how bad the 30 years war was - you'd think compared to one that lasted 100 years it would be a drop in the bucket. You have to remember that 'war' was a different concept back then. It was more or less 100 years of constant feudal warfare punctuated with the occasional high level push by one side or the other, with towns and castles constantly changing sides. Things get really bad from the Thirty Years War onward because that's the point where the modern concept of a standing professional army is returning to Europe and the tensions within the Holy Roman Empire and with French expansionism start causing wars that inevitably suck in everyone in Europe, and pretty much every European war has been ended up like that right up to today.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
The Thirty Years war was so destructive to the area in which it was fought that the population of German was reckoned to have been reduced by as much as 40% by the end of the war, with certain areas practically depopulated and burnt to the ground. So, yeah, way worse than the 100 years war.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Also, can anyone tell me about the English Civil war? All I know is that Crowmwell beat the royalists up, then set himself up as dictator but never took the throne. Then once he died parliament invited the royals back if they gave up a load of power to parliament, which is how we didn't end of with batshit insane kings messing everything up. (see, France, Spain)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
What would likely have happened if the Germans (I know this isn't realistic at all) had beat the U.S. at gaining nuclear tech and created usable nukes around June 1944? I'm assuming they would have used them and likely to fend off the Russians?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:What would likely have happened if the Germans (I know this isn't realistic at all) had beat the U.S. at gaining nuclear tech and created usable nukes around June 1944? Put it in a V1 and send it straight to London.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Put it in a V1 and send it straight to London. Why London? I was under the impression that at this point in the war the Russian's were a far bigger threat?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Why London? I was under the impression that at this point in the war the Russian's were a far bigger threat? Because gently caress you london, that's why.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Why London? I was under the impression that at this point in the war the Russian's were a far bigger threat? I don't think the V2 would have had the range to hit any decent cities in Russia, like Moscow or Saint Pete. Wouldn't later in 1944 the front lines be too far back?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Why London? I was under the impression that at this point in the war the Russian's were a far bigger threat? I'm guessing they would have eradicated the largest military threat (Soviet Russia) and then turned all their attention to a slow grind in taking over Great Britain. The only thing that mattered in Russia was that you could still grow crops there in the end. A low yield nuke would still wipe everything out but keep it preserved for liebensraum. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Why London? I was under the impression that at this point in the war the Russian's were a far bigger threat? As long as Hitler was in charge and able to he'd send a gently caress you to Churchill.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Lebensraum. The Germans getting the bomb, in '44 no less, is pretty stupid as counterfactuals go since all the ultimate causes for them not being able to build one IRL (fleeing/expulsion/persecution of scientists, destructive intra-governmental competition, capricious leadership behavior and goal-setting) preclude any meaningful comparison to events as they played out. You can't just change the one variable.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Sure you can, its fun! I say they'd have nuked a nice big concentration of Russian troops preparing for an offensive, then once everyone knew they had nukes, sit behind their borders pretending to rest and rearm while killing the rest of the people in the camps and slowing descending into a total and brutal anarchy. A bit like Zaire under Mobotu, paying off the army to keep him in power and letting them have free reign on the population who Hitler decided backstabbed him.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Koesj posted:You can't just change the one variable. Basically this. But if somehow that did happen, London would be the likely target because it's the pragmatic target since major Russian cities were out of range for V-weapons. Not only it would send a ridiculous blow to the British, but it gets the desired message of "Look what we got" out to the Soviets
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The Germans getting the bomb, in '44 no less, is pretty stupid as counterfactuals go since all the ultimate causes for them not being able to build one IRL (fleeing/expulsion/persecution of scientists, destructive intra-governmental competition, capricious leadership behavior and goal-setting) preclude any meaningful comparison to events as they played out. That's one of the most interesting thing about counterfactuals involving a German victory in WWII: Any changes sufficient to allow them a good shot at victory pretty much make them not Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Oh and Fat Man/Little Boy were both 4.5 times heavier than even the V-2's maximum payload, not to mention the V-1. So what's their delivery platform again?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Oh and Fat Man/Little Boy were both 4.5 times heavier than even the V-2's maximum payload, not to mention the V-1. So what's their delivery platform again? A huge golden statue of Stalin. Soviets carry it to Moscow and everyone gathers to parade around it, not knowing that inside is a bomb!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Oh and Fat Man/Little Boy were both 4.5 times heavier than even the V-2's maximum payload, not to mention the V-1. So what's their delivery platform again? Well you're just no fun at all! Someone asked a question about a page ago about the wars between India and Pakistan and the independence of Bangladesh, that would be an interesting read if someone feels like writing it up.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
If the Frenchies had developed nukes in 1814 how and where would they have deployed them? (supposing it would have been of a size and weight similar to Fat Man)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If the Frenchies had developed nukes in 1814 how and where would they have deployed them? Hidden deep underground Versailles so that they would be ready in 1939, such was the depth of Napoleon's genius and forward thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Logiwonk posted:So did the Hundred Year's War actually last a hundred years or was it more like several smaller wars strung together? Also, why do I hear more about how bad the 30 years war was - you'd think compared to one that lasted 100 years it would be a drop in the bucket. Both the 100 years war and the Italian wars were fought on concentrated areas of interest and with low troop count, with armies only mustering grand forces on special occasions. This meant that the looting was resumed to a few areas that were so predictable that the local farmers knew were and what to harvest, avoiding to make their wine on the contested areas and putting grain there. Not only that but the looting was mainly reserved to the English side, who at best fielded 10 thousand soldiers at the same time. 10 thousand soldiers simply cannot loot France. The 30 years war, on the other hand, was waged but every single imperial prince, duchy or theocracy and it's neighboring states, each one fielding their own mercenary companies that, when realising that their salaries were no longer sustainable, started looting everything in their path. If the Italian Condottieri died during the Italian Wars, all the fantasy and charm of the mercenary died in the 30 years war.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Also, wasn't it the first time in Europe muskets and sakers were grouped together and used en mass in the 30 years war?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
I'd imagine that the idea of wiping out all of the peoples east of Germany along with everything they've ever built would sound very appealing to Hitler, provided that the first couple of shots could stop the Soviet advance. I think he'd be more reticent to wipe out France or Britain, since those areas are more "pure" from the Nazi perspective, I'm told. Napoleon would do nothing with nukes because he didn't have any planes to put them on, and you can't shoot a nuke far enough away with a cannon. It would be pretty keen as a self-destruct mechanism for when he ran an unsuccessful campaign that he had to flee from though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Eh, there's a few things I can think of. The best use I could think of would probably be to load it aboard a ship and try to wipe out the core of the Royal Navy in a suicide attack. The logistics would be difficult to figure out, but if it worked, suddenly France has control of the seas and Britain may as well be out of the war. Next question: What would have changed if George Washington was a Terminator?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Next question: What would have changed if George Washington was a Terminator? Uh excuse me, I don't think it would have made much difference, I mean you can't just change one variable and expect history to go another way 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Next question: What would have changed if George Washington was a Terminator? He wouldn't have needed all those sets of false teeth.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
Concerning the Hundred Years' War: did anyone here read Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror? I'm currently going through it, and it heavily covers the war. She paints a picture of a ravaged France being pillaged by large, professional mercenary companies. They were little better than brigands, but made up of experienced veterans and "adventurous" knights that seemed well beyond the power of the Valois kings to control. I don't know how accurate the book is, which is why I'm wondering if anyone more familiar with the time period is familiar with it. It's an entertaining read, though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Eh, there's a few things I can think of. The best use I could think of would probably be to load it aboard a ship and try to wipe out the core of the Royal Navy in a suicide attack. The logistics would be difficult to figure out, but if it worked, suddenly France has control of the seas and Britain may as well be out of the war. Then there's the option of burying it under a battlefield as a nuclear mine. The problem would be getting your enemy to come to that particular location in a sufficient force, but if done properly the troop concentrations of the time would guarantee the destruction of an entire army. (And half of yours if they weren't entrenched...) Acebuckeye13 posted:Next question: What would have changed if George Washington was a Terminator? This depends on when John Connor's ancestors immigrated to America. If they were still in Europe at the time he would have brought his army across the Atlantic. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 12:43 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Let me direct you guys to Weird War II: history, but different in GBS. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Eh, there's a few things I can think of. The best use I could think of would probably be to load it aboard a ship and try to wipe out the core of the Royal Navy in a suicide attack. The logistics would be difficult to figure out, but if it worked, suddenly France has control of the seas and Britain may as well be out of the war. That's a good one, another option is putting it on a submarine and blowing up target cities from inside harbors. Problem is that you can't really guarantee the survivability of the bomb. That's a very expensive piece of hardware right there and losing it isn't really an option. Sending bombers into contested airspace is out of the question for the very same reason. I think the only realistic option is to use it as either a mine or a demolition munition, preferably both since you want maximum effect on target with such a slow to produce bomb (the US only completed four of them before the end of the war). Against troops it'd be hard to pick a target where its destructive effects vastly outweigh that of a day's work for a couple of artillery regiments and I don't think there are many (or any) targets to crater or inundate. Maybe along the upper Rhine but that's a different theater and probably to close to the homeland/inside valuable territory. Something that could have been used as a defensive WMD on the German side: tripwire persistent chemicals. Maybe with the bomb as an offensive retaliatory backup (if you respond in kind, we'll destroy Moscow/London etc.) e: Argh Nenonen posted:Then there's the option of burying it under a battlefield as a nuclear mine. The problem would be getting your enemy to come to that particular location in a sufficient force, but if done properly the troop concentrations of the time would guarantee the destruction of an entire army. (And half of yours if they weren't entrenched... The early bombs were pretty small, you'd hit more like a divisions' worth of troops. http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20 Koesj fucked around with this message at 13:11 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 13:00
|
|