|
Probably reasonably well, the GBS is now much calmer than it used to be and long specialized threads exist without anybody mocking them.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:You can try the history book thread in the book barn, or you can just ask here. Almost all history is connected to war in some way. Also statistics: for every year of peace there have been four hundred years of war. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/177286
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I blame our drat dirty distant ape genes. When will the primate on primate violence end!?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
When we eradicate the lemur menace. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I blame our drat dirty distant ape genes. When will the primate on primate violence end!? When it ends, we will become soft and the bears will take over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Lemuridae conservo est.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:36
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Hogge Wild posted:When it ends, we will become soft and the bears will take over. Polish bears?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:When it ends, we will become soft and the bears will take over. Wild tanks proliferate. Tank on tank crime becomes the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
So they import Tank Destroyers to control the Tank population. But what can they use to control the Tank Destroyer population?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Atomic Bombs, which are themselves controlled by the bears, completing the circle of
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:So they import Tank Destroyers to control the Tank population. But what can they use to control the Tank Destroyer population? God creates dinosaurs, god destroys dinsaurs. God creates man, man destroys god. Man creates tanks, tanks destroy man, tank destroyers inherit the earth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The assumption that "culture" (nebulous and multifaceted as it is) develops in a darwinian fashion is a gigantic leap of faith. You make some good points. Cultural evolution isn't the same as biologic evolution. The assumption used by many archeologists, for example Julian Steward, is that cultural traits are adaptations, and propagate through natural selection. Here is a not-so-brief summary of Darwin's theories as used in anthropology and archeology. That there is a difference in the rate of change is not disputed, but it is not necessarily important. I disagree with what you have said on evolution. the environment does select adaptations, but it must have choices to select from. If each individual is born with the same number of mutations, Larger populations will produce more mutations than smaller ones. This is the difference I referenced. This doesn't mean large populations evolve faster than smaller ones, in fact the opposite is more often true, thanks to forces like genetic drift and more intense selective pressure. However I'm not sure the rate of evolution the most important factor in this case. Mesoamerica and South America did have large populations. They never exceed the population of Europe and Asia combined, however. This post is getting off topic, so I'll share some curious weapons and armor from around the world  Above from Kiribati, the tradition weapon is a long sharks-tooth "sword." The armor is made of coconut fiber.  Koryak warrior from Siberia. The armor would have been used in small scale feuds. Probably not so useful outside of ranged combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Getting slightly into Tom Clancy territory here, but it's pretty pertinent to military history. How able was the Warsaw pacts military situation in the 1980s? Would it have actually been able to Red Hammer NATO into dust if it had invaded? How did it square up to NATO technologically and strategically? My Dad was in the British coldstream guards in Germany during the 1970s, and said that the doctrine was something like running away continually until the Americans/nukes came, so I'm interested in hearing more from people who are more in the know than I am in the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
maev posted:Getting slightly into Tom Clancy territory here, but it's pretty pertinent to military history. How able was the Warsaw pacts military situation in the 1980s? Would it have actually been able to Red Hammer NATO into dust if it had invaded? How did it square up to NATO technologically and strategically? Keep running.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
This is a really interesting website about captured aircraft during WW2. http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/394/language/en-CA/WTF.aspx my dad posted:Keep running. I've seen you get so much mileage out of your username. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
I think it was mentioned in the previous Mil-Hist thread that NATO forces were designed to put up just enough of a fight to be beaten and/or have to retreat, therefore justifying the use of nukes to stop the Soviets, therefore discouraging the Soviets from invading if they didn't want to get nuked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
maev posted:Getting slightly into Tom Clancy territory here, but it's pretty pertinent to military history. How able was the Warsaw pacts military situation in the 1980s? Would it have actually been able to Red Hammer NATO into dust if it had invaded? How did it square up to NATO technologically and strategically? Warsaw pact had numbers, so it's hard to tell if training quality would be enough. Many conscripts wouldn't be too willing to fight, there are secret police reports from  that during Korean war many people enlisted because they assumed they'd be sent to fight Americans. Then they'd defect in force  I imagine that as long as Warsaw Pact forces keeped momentum everything would be ok, but during first successful counterstrike Polish, Czechoslovakian or German soldiers wouldn't be likely to fight for their opressors..
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I imagine that as long as Warsaw Pact forces keeped momentum everything would be ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
maev posted:Getting slightly into Tom Clancy territory here, but it's pretty pertinent to military history. How able was the Warsaw pacts military situation in the 1980s? Would it have actually been able to Red Hammer NATO into dust if it had invaded? How did it square up to NATO technologically and strategically? I see you caught the Wargame bug. It really depends on which period in the 1980s you're talking about. From mid-decade onwards it went all downhill for the USSR, something which Odom's Collapse of the Soviet Military describes very thoroughly, but I can't for the life remember even 10% of that book  quote:My Dad was in the British coldstream guards in Germany during the 1970s, and said that the doctrine was something like running away continually until the Americans/nukes came, so I'm interested in hearing more from people who are more in the know than I am in the subject. That's a bit egregious. The Americans were already there and would have pretty much gotten stomped on as much as everyone else (on both sides), especially in the 70s. Also it's actually the nukes wot probably prevented it in the first place. alex314 posted:Warsaw pact had numbers, so it's hard to tell if training quality would be enough. Many conscripts wouldn't be too willing to fight, there are secret police reports from The East German Army was, by all accounts, considered to be very reliable. Other WP militaries though... not so much. The Poles got demoted after 1980, and IIRC the Czechoslovakians were supposed to die in the mountains. Ghost of Mussolini posted:Up until the first supermarket they bump into at least Why stop at Aldi when there's a REWE up the road?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
alex314 posted:I imagine that as long as Warsaw Pact forces keeped momentum everything would be ok, but during first successful counterstrike Polish, Czechoslovakian or German soldiers wouldn't be likely to fight for their opressors.. GDR political officer: "As long as the NATO advances, everything will be okay, but as soon as we give them a good reversal in a counterattack, the Germans, Dutch, Danish, Belgians and French won't be likely to fight for their oppressors..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
So I've never really wrapped my head around how the cold war numbers end up being really lop sided towards the USSR? Is it because they entertained required conscription? Nato forces too spread out? NATO economic footing was more towards civilian use vs military use? The population of the USSR was just that much bigger and so just as a percentage numbers are higher?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
What numbers? When? And compared to whom? You'll have to be a bit more specific because there are way more narratives here than 'hurr commie hordes'. Armaments ministries and industries run amok, atrophying the civilian economy to keep up with real and perceived threats, and party political considerations about military strength were important factors, but most Western countries ran conscription, high military budgets, and vigilant states of readiness as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Koesj posted:What numbers? When? And compared to whom? You'll have to be a bit more specific because there are way more narratives here than 'hurr commie hordes'. Armaments ministries and industries run amok, atrophying the civilian economy to keep up with real and perceived threats, and party political considerations about military strength were important factors, but most Western countries ran conscription, high military budgets, and vigilant states of readiness as well. Just pure man power, infantry, tanks, air power. At both the beginning of cold war tensions (about '46) and at the height of tensions between the two sides. The narrative I keep seeing is, "The red horde is gonna pile through the fulda and gently caress errthing up and we gotta nuke em oohrah"  and I was just wondering how the USSR would amass that much in man power to just stomp through Nato defenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
I'd say you've been seeing bottom of the barrel stuff then, but I'll admit that the qualitative level of Cold War historiography can be pretty low. Looking at it from a late 1940s perspective is pretty useless in the face of the US nuclear monopoly IMO, and the overall trend during the early Cold War was an ever increasing focus on nuclear weapons anyway, culminating in a mutual de-emphasizing of conventional forces throughout the 50s and well into the 60s. So if you want to play a numbers game you'd have to start counting bomb(er)s, and later missiles. If by the height of tensions you mean 1962, a conflict between East and West would have been nuclear and strategic, and it probably would have meant the absolute annihilation of the USSR compared to the US possibly weathering the storm. When talking about the early 1980s of war porn fame then the situation might look a bit different on paper, but no one was willing to rattle the cage and risk total war, so what do numbers even mean in a situation like that? Anyway, the USSR only reached strategic nuclear parity in the early 70s, had big problems in operating an undersea nuclear deterrent, were very vulnerable along their Northern Frontier to bombers throughout the entire period, had to intervene with military means to keep their sphere of influence intact multiple times, had to strain their economy past breaking point to keep up with/compensate for technological developments, and ultimately lost their empire when they had to get rid of the contradictions inherent to their system. Even then, NATO had about 50 divisions (or equivalents) available on relatively short notice compared to the Warsaw Pact's 70~75 - along the FRG eastern border in 1985 that is. Oh and gently caress the Fulda Gap 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I'd say you've been seeing bottom of the barrel stuff then. Pretty much. My military history knowledge from an actual, "I've read tones of books" perspective only encompasses WW2(surprise). My cold war "knowledge" really is pop culture and two modern history courses which pretty much skimmed basic stuff. Oh and I read a book called WW3(I cant remember the title or author, but it had a weird tag line like" The book president Kennedy kept on his desk") which tried to present a "plausible" WW3 scenario which started with the USSR going through Fulda and ended with them nuking Birmingham England or something, but I ended up writing most of it off as wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
KildarX posted:The population of the USSR was just that much bigger and so just as a percentage numbers are higher?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Pretty much. My military history knowledge from an actual, "I've read tones of books" perspective only encompasses WW2(surprise). My cold war "knowledge" really is pop culture and two modern history courses which pretty much skimmed basic stuff. Oh and I read a book called WW3(I cant remember the title or author, but it had a weird tag line like" The book president Kennedy kept on his desk") which tried to present a "plausible" WW3 scenario which started with the USSR going through Fulda and ended with them nuking Birmingham England or something, but I ended up writing most of it off as wishful thinking. That'd be either Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985, or its rewrite/sequel, The Third World War: The Untold Story. Both books could have hardly been lying around on Kennedy's desk, well, maybe Ted's, but they aren't particularly stupid either. If you were to do reread you'd find that Hackett describes a world where the run-up to war was very much in the USSR's favor, but in which NATO is actually pretty successful in countering this attack. Not at all surprising really because they have prepared for it in a way that he himself thought was necessary; Hackett was COMNORTHAG in the 1960s, and therefore responsible for running NATO's entire Northern front in the FRG - comprising of Dutch, German, British, and Belgian forces. It makes for a decent read if you ignore p much everything he feels like saying about world politics, because it's one of those books that has its operational details in order. Among other things the main thrust of the Soviet attack IIRC doesn't come through the US V Corps AO (~the Fulda Gap~) but rather through Hackett's former stomping ground: the North German Plain, an area that supposedly induced an inordinate amount of headaches among NATO military planners. Other books that IMO do this scenario well are Red Army and Chieftains!. Unfortunately there hasn't been much serious work done on 1970s and 80s operational planning because both sides have locked their archives and thrown away the keys. e: VVVV this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Lots of this stuff has its source in the 'Red Hordes' narrative of WW2 that rehabilitated german generals pushed really hard and the West lapped up. Now the Red army did suffer staggering losses during the war, but the main takeaway from that should be that the USSR enters the cold war as a nation that's just lost 20% of its male population and is desperate not to repeat the experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:This is an important thing to consider that seems to go unchallenged pretty regularly. People seem to think that the population of the USSR is bigger than almost the entirety of Europe west of the Iron Curtain AND the entire North American continent, as well as Australia and New Zealand. Is everyone mentally adding in China to every "gone hot" scenario or something? Jus' another trope is all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Koesj posted:That'd be either Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985, or its rewrite/sequel, The Third World War: The Untold Story. Both books could have hardly been lying around on Kennedy's desk, well, maybe Ted's, but they aren't particularly stupid either. Yep that's the book I read it a few years back. I'll see if I can find it on my book shelf if you think its worth a read through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Yep that's the book I read it a few years back. I'll see if I can find it on my book shelf if you think its worth a read through. Books like his were, for a long time, the simultaneous entry-level, intermediate, and final required reading on the subject. My favorite subject's historiography is simply atrocious. Nowadays we've also got stuff like Hans Boersma's fantastic write-up on 1 (NL) Corps planning, the leaked US V Corps GDP (general defense plan) out of the Stasi archives, Lautsch's not that well received stuff about East German Army planning (in German), people from my own country's Military Archives tackling mostly niche stuff, and the one German Military History Institute's dude whose name I've forgotten writing about the Bundeswehr. e: concerning the 1980s that is, Hoffenaar, Krüger, and Zabecki published a decent collection of stuff about 1948-1968: http://www.amazon.com/Blueprints-Battle-Planning-1948-1968-Military/dp/0813136512 Koesj fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
I don't think the US ever really developed a counter for the USSR's Yuris, though. Other then, well, blasting things out of the timestream and hoping for the best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
All those Cold War Soviet invasion novels seem like barely concealed adverts for higher military spending, to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:All those Cold War Soviet invasion novels seem like barely concealed adverts for higher military spending, to me. I'm pretty sure at least one didn't even bother hiding it. "First Strike" or something? It straight up said in the foreword that it was an argument for a doctrinal shift in nuclear strategy, with accompanying funding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
A lot of them were pretty transparent about it in epilogues and such though, Team B and the more egregious RAND poo poo always presented their stuff as-is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
A related note, lets remove nukes from the equation for a moment and revisit Germany in mid-1945. You have the Western Allies on one side and the USSR on the other and for whatever reason both decide to simply keep going. What do the forces actually look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:A related note, lets remove nukes from the equation for a moment and revisit Germany in mid-1945. You have the Western Allies on one side and the USSR on the other and for whatever reason both decide to simply keep going. What do the forces actually look like? Do we remove Operation Vegetarian from the equation too? EDIT: Overall, I just don't see the two sides being that motivated to fight each other after the defeat of Germany. I don't think you can just handwave that away, without suggesting some really significant psychological changes. EDIT2: Anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:A related note, lets remove nukes from the equation for a moment and revisit Germany in mid-1945. You have the Western Allies on one side and the USSR on the other and for whatever reason both decide to simply keep going. What do the forces actually look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:A related note, lets remove nukes from the equation for a moment and revisit Germany in mid-1945. You have the Western Allies on one side and the USSR on the other and for whatever reason both decide to simply keep going. What do the forces actually look like? Churchill commissioned a study on this and they got back to him with a big ol' "gently caress no it ain't happenin'". The scale was completely lopsided in favor of the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Churchill commissioned a study on this and they got back to him with a big ol' "gently caress no it ain't happenin'". The scale was completely lopsided in favor of the Soviets. Good old Operation Unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:42
|
|