Libluini posted:And that stupid Eve Online monument in Reykjavik's harbor with its thousands upon thousands of player names engraved will be our Sumerian King List. What theories will distant generations of historians to come will spawn about the mighty Admiral_sNACKb@R thousands of years from now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:What theories will distant generations of historians to come will spawn about the mighty Admiral_sNACKb@R thousands of years from now? Hell, considering there are a lot of names like "James315", most likely they will think we have an unhealthy obsession with numbers. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Hell, considering there are a lot of names like "James315", most likely they will think we have an unhealthy obsession with numbers. Truly the greatest warrior of our time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
On the subject of Sherman's march, my dad (an amateur history buff and not forums poster my dad) likes to say that the three greatest logisticians (that's a word) were Caesar, Napoleon, and Sherman. Is that at least a reasonable statement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:On the subject of Sherman's march, my dad (an amateur history buff and not forums poster my dad) likes to say that the three greatest logisticians (that's a word) were Caesar, Napoleon, and Sherman. Is that at least a reasonable statement? Well, one of the issues with that is that logistics often relies on a system more than a person. Hegel's got the example of the 30YW era armies flailing at each other and running supplies via 'I bet this land hasn't been quite picked over yet' while the Janissaries across the border were meticulously counting sewing needles and pillowcases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Hell, considering there are a lot of names like "James315", most likely they will think we have an unhealthy obsession with numbers. Image how it would be if they misinterpreted Xbox live names. The Hunt for the Tomb of xxweedlordbonerhitler420xx.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
I don't if I should find it hilarious or sad that thousands of years from now historians may be having fierce debates over just who weedlord bonerhitler is and why he hates obamacare so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I don't if I should find it hilarious or sad that thousands of years from now historians may be having fierce debates over just who weedlord bonerhitler is and why he hates obamacare so much. Don't worry, caches of preserved politoons will clarify that Obama was a foreign cult leader who introduced Aztec-style sacrifices at the altar of Karl Marx.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Don't worry, caches of preserved politoons will clarify that Obama was a foreign cult leader who introduced Aztec-style sacrifices at the altar of Karl Marx.  Well future textbooks will be interesting at least..
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
So I've been trying to brush up on Chinese History a little, and I'm curious about the conduct of resistance to the Japanese invasion in WW2. The line I've picked from most books is that the Nationalists did most of the fighting, but were hopelessly ill prepared to put up stiff resistance against Japan due to a combination of incompetence, ill-discipline, poor supplies, and Chiang Kai-Shek trying to keep his forces out of the Mixer and Hope Japan would be defeated by America and the USSR instead. Meanwhile the Communists bided their time regaining strength after the defeats and Long march from the 30s, with a few propaganda attacks on the Japanese to remind people they still existed but nothing major. So it all ends with the Nationalists having lost most of their strength in destructive fighting over 8 years while also losing popular support due to the shittyness of their resistance and "let America sort it out" attitude while the Japanese were genociding Chinese commoners, allowing the Rejuvenated communists to steal the initiative, especially after they gain control of Manchuria, and defeat the Nationalists. All very neat, but I've heard others argue that the Communists were at the forefront of a massive guerrilla war against the Japanese and won popular support due to their daring campaigns while the Nationalists sat on the side with their thumbs up their asses. I'll admit I'm a little cynical of this since it sounds like exactly the kind of line the CCP would push, but I don't know enough about the situation to really comment so any Chinese history Goons who have any insight, where was most of the fighting against the Japanese coming from in the Sino-Japanese war? Communists, Nationalists, or some kind of mostly neutral assortment of factions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:So I've been trying to brush up on Chinese History a little, and I'm curious about the conduct of resistance to the Japanese invasion in WW2. The line I've picked from most books is that the Nationalists did most of the fighting, but were hopelessly ill prepared to put up stiff resistance against Japan due to a combination of incompetence, ill-discipline, poor supplies, and Chiang Kai-Shek trying to keep his forces out of the Mixer and Hope Japan would be defeated by America and the USSR instead. Meanwhile the Communists bided their time regaining strength after the defeats and Long march from the 30s, with a few propaganda attacks on the Japanese to remind people they still existed but nothing major. So it all ends with the Nationalists having lost most of their strength in destructive fighting over 8 years while also losing popular support due to the shittyness of their resistance and "let America sort it out" attitude while the Japanese were genociding Chinese commoners, allowing the Rejuvenated communists to steal the initiative, especially after they gain control of Manchuria, and defeat the Nationalists. The Communists and Nationalists had temporary alliances... Twice, I believe? Formally anyway. Both times, it was basically the Soviets and Americans pushing for it hard, both factions really hated the other and these alliances didn't last. Not really my area of expertise but from what I understand, the Nationalists generally tried not to fight the Japanese and wanted to conserve strength to wipe out the Communists once and for all. America was going to bail them out eventually, so why waste the most modern army China had ever had (With a lot of assistance from Germany) to deal with a problem that was going to be solved anyway? This really paints the Nationalists in a bad light and it's hard to nail down how true some of this is because, well, both sides are still around and they sure as hell want to push their narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:So I've been trying to brush up on Chinese History a little, and I'm curious about the conduct of resistance to the Japanese invasion in WW2. The line I've picked from most books is that the Nationalists did most of the fighting, but were hopelessly ill prepared to put up stiff resistance against Japan due to a combination of incompetence, ill-discipline, poor supplies, and Chiang Kai-Shek trying to keep his forces out of the Mixer and Hope Japan would be defeated by America and the USSR instead. Meanwhile the Communists bided their time regaining strength after the defeats and Long march from the 30s, with a few propaganda attacks on the Japanese to remind people they still existed but nothing major. So it all ends with the Nationalists having lost most of their strength in destructive fighting over 8 years while also losing popular support due to the shittyness of their resistance and "let America sort it out" attitude while the Japanese were genociding Chinese commoners, allowing the Rejuvenated communists to steal the initiative, especially after they gain control of Manchuria, and defeat the Nationalists. Unfortunately the only book I've read that covers the subject is Hastings' Retribution which is about the 1944-1945 Pacific theater as a whole. However he delves into this in his chapter on the Ichi-go offensive where both sides you present are partly wrong and partly right. The nationalists, as the better supplied, equipped and nominally the government of China fought a conventional war and paid dearly for it. Chinese nationalist armies were probably the worst to be a soldier of any of the fighting countries. Most of the average infantryman's equipment never reached him, being stolen by others in the supply chain, with food not uncommonly being stolen to the point that troops were only getting a few grams of a rice a day. A not insignificant amount of troops were press-ganged into service and Chiang's generals were incompetent, corrupt boobs, thus their poor performance in a modern style war was unavoidable. The communists, not being supplied very much by either the US or Stalin resorted to a guerrilla war. I wouldn't really call it effective on a strategic scale in the war against Japan, whatever success they had cost them lives and equipment and would provoke a Japanese response which usually resulted in killing nearby peasents. However between Japanese brutality and the necessary close relation to a civilian population required of a guerrilla war won over many peasents. Hastings notes that the CPC did launch a few conventional battles like the nationalists, but mostly when the US was threatening to end their trickle of aid. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
It's not true the Comm. Chinese didn't fight... They just were more competent, practiced ideological indoctrination and had more reliable commanders and politicians. I don't remember where exactly but in one book there was an analysis that Chiang could rely on maybe 15 % of his generals not to become turncloaks when threatened by defeat. That was supposedly the same portion as among the collaborationist armies of the wartime Nanking regime. The Nationalists would also sometimes order their troops to surrender to wait for an opportune moment to betray the Japanese (in addition to the usual defections), but I think it would be generally unfair to accuse them of avoiding fighting. The Communists perhaps didn't have equal access to help coming through Burma and over the Hump, but they did control the equally important channel of assistance going through the Soviet Union and then from Urumqi to the main provinces, and thanks to lobbying by Soviet advisors were able to actually get more equipment relative to the size of their regular army (i.e. the 8th Route Army) than the Nationalists. Also they didn't really resort to guerrilla campaign as much as they successfully continued their combined approach of using regular armies and peasant vanguard to fight enemy's rear, and their guerrilla warfare was quite effective in exhausting Japanese and Nanking troops in pacification campaigns. Their actions stretched all the way from Kansu to coastal provinces like Shantung and Hebei. Argas posted:The Communists and Nationalists had temporary alliances... Twice, I believe? Formally anyway. Both times, it was basically the Soviets and Americans pushing for it hard. Can you source anything to suggest the Americans were in any shape or form involved in pushing for the United Fronts? To me it sounds like merely dismissing the role domestic politicians played in Chinese faction politics. Also it sounds quite strange considering how much foreign consortiums were invested in the rival Beijing government of the time. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Can you source anything to suggest the Americans were in any shape or form involved in pushing for the United Fronts? To me it sounds like merely dismissing the role domestic politicians played in Chinese faction politics. Also it sounds quite strange considering how much foreign consortiums were invested in the rival Beijing government of the time. Got nothing here, just stuff I read in a textbook far too many classes ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:The Soviets AFAIK called it the Great War or World War I, except that they usually prefaced it with adjectives such as "bourgeois", "imperialist" or whatever. The problem here is that for anyone but the Russians GPW (1941-45) =/= WWII (1939-45). Would it be safe to say that the Soviets considered the GPW, Winter War, and Continuation War to be campaigns of the larger WWII then? Or as isolated wars where the USSR fought specific enemies for specific reasons, but not wholly connected to the rest of the global conflict?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
The politically charged texts I've read to connect the invasions of Poland and Finland with "imperialist expansionism" and "spread of Germanic fascism". The not so politically charged ones acknowledge that a buffer zone needed to be established against German attack. The Polish part of the conflict is referred to as "Campaign in West Belarus and West Ukraine".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Would it be safe to say that the Soviets considered the GPW, Winter War, and Continuation War to be campaigns of the larger WWII then? Or as isolated wars where the USSR fought specific enemies for specific reasons, but not wholly connected to the rest of the global conflict? From Soviet perspective, the GPW was a central part of the second world war, no question about that. Continuation War being part of the GPW, as Soviets (nor anyone, really) didn't buy the Finnish propaganda of a 'separate war'. My understanding is that Winter War (a term nowadays accepted by Russian historians and public but not during the Soviet era) was an outlier for Soviets, not really a WW2 campaign, just like the Soviet annexation of the Baltic republics couldn't be called as such, even though all of these resulted from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that also resulted in the last partition of Poland that we usually name as the starting point of WW2. What I'd like to know is how the transfer of Polish territories to Soviet republics was explained in Soviet Union and how it was told in communist Poland after the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
In the Soviet Union? Reclamation of ethnically Ukrainian and Belorussian lands. These have been Russian Imperial lands and were taken by Poland quite recently when that campaign took place. I don't think it needed that much explanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
When the Soviets came in, they declared that the Polish state had collapsed and they were merely moving to protect the citizens of the area. They also claimed to "liberate them from the yoke of the Polish feudal bourgeois masters". Naturally, in a quickly called referendum 999999,99% of the populace voted to join the Soviet Republics. As for what it was told in communist Poland: it wasn't. Although one of the first decrees of PKWN (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego, Polish National Liberation Committee), the pro-Soviet puppet government installed in Lublin in 1944 (also known as the Lublin government, as opposed to London government-in-exile) was about recognising Soviet sovereignty on the lands east of the German-Soviet "border of friendship", it for some reason wasn't all that widely publicised. In the Stalinist era in Poland, nobody talked about the pre-war eastern border. It wasn't decried, wasn't ridiculed, or praised, it was simply gone from public discourse or textbooks. Most of the Poles who survived the Soviet rule in the Kresy (as the Poles referred to - and occasionally still refer - the area in question) were deported to the lands taken from Germany in the west (the so-called Ziemie Odzyskane - Recovered Lands). After the end of the most oppressive period - sometime around 1956 - the subject was still carefully omitted in textbooks and political discourse, but occasionally appeared in cultural texts during periods of lax censorship standards. Even so, the question of how the Kresy were lost was never actually approached. They simply were there, sometimes as the land of happy childhood, sometimes as simply the background to a character's past (and for example a hint that they might have been deported to a gulag), sometimes as something else entirely, then they were lost for reasons unspecified, although well known.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Meanwhile the Communists bided their time regaining strength after the defeats and Long march from the 30s, with a few propaganda attacks on the Japanese to remind people they still existed but nothing major. Well, given that the Communists in most other areas of Axis-occupied territory in World War 2 were at the forefront of the resistance, and had a lot of goodwill afterwards in many places because of it... Granted, the Japanese weren't explicitly dedicated and formed for the purpose of crushing Communism in quite the same way the Nazis were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Do you mind sharing your opinion as a Russian on the situation in Ukraine EE? I've yet to actually hear it from that side other than from media outlets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well, given that the Communists in most other areas of Axis-occupied territory in World War 2 were at the forefront of the resistance, and had a lot of goodwill afterwards in many places because of it... The Japanese organized massive pacification campaigns that were neither in style nor in scale different from what the Germans were doing in the USSR to the rural population. E: Literature claims that at any point there could be as many as 200,000 Japanese soldiers engaged in anti-Communist pacification operations, alongside a difficult to determine number of Chinese troops drafted from county and province forces - though a conservative estimate would put the number of native anti-Communist troops at a parity with the Japanese. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The Japanese organized massive pacification campaigns that were neither in style nor in scale different from what the Germans were doing in the USSR to the rural population. Yep, sure, they were absolute shitheads, but (I would presume) this was directed equally at Chiang Kai-Shek's guys as the communists. No 'shoot the commissars' order or anything and no specific ideological singling out of Communists over everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yep, sure, they were absolute shitheads, but (I would presume) this was directed equally at Chiang Kai-Shek's guys as the communists. No 'shoot the commissars' order or anything and no specific ideological singling out of Communists over everyone else. That is not correct, the Japanese made special measures against Communist control of the countryside - though it was more due to organizational nature of the Communist resistance and the great problems the Communists caused than due to stern ideological reasons. Basically yeah, intimidation of peasants not to join the Communist movement, as well as ideological profiling and imprisonment (= death) were common, though it's diffiult to distinguish whether specific cases were ordered and executed by the Japanese, Chinese landlords or other local authorities. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
maev posted:Do you mind sharing your opinion as a Russian on the situation in Ukraine EE? I've yet to actually hear it from that side other than from media outlets. I've been following the situation through Livejournal, so it's going to differ from the official discourse. Going back a while, Yanukovich has been a massive shitlord in terms of government corruption, but no one cares too much until he decided to not join the EU. Then a bunch of peaceful protesters spilled out on the streets and started peacefully protesting. This didn't cause much noise, since this sort of thing happens once in a while and is usually very temporary. Almost immediately, fringe nationalist groups/opposition parties/people that like smashing things poured into the protesters, organized "self defense squads", and started offensive takeover of government buildings. Police/Berkut/Ministry of the Interior peasant conscripts attempted to hold, but the conscripts didn't even have shields, and the cops only had gas/smoke grenades, batons, and riot shields (which they periodically lost to protesters). The non-violent protesters opposed these hostile actions, but they couldn't really do much. The government loses several buildings in Kiev. Maidan headquarters are established in the city hall. Family members of policemen are threatened publicly, most flee the city or country. Keep in mind that not everyone at the Maidan were there because of their political beliefs: students were largely allowed to skip class for the Maidan and lots of people were paid to be there. Peaceful protesters are still kicking around, setting up camps, trying to supply a steady stream of medication (typhoid was pretty rampant, I don't know if it still is) and food. Muscle-men from the opposition crews periodically drop by and "collect" the donations. Requests for supplies to headquarters are either ignored or not fully satisfied. Protester occupied territory is gradually covered in nazist symbols and with ultra-nationalist slogans. The movement spills out in the rest of the Ukraine. Western provinces offer little resistance to takeover, Eastern ones offer some, Crimea (specifically Odessa and Sevastopol) have more people showing up to protect government buildings than to storm them. At this point, the opposition thugs in Western regions have gotten their hands on police armouries and are freely using newly acquired firearms and whatever private citizens brought in against the police. The order to fire back has not yet been given. Citizens that don't give a drat about all this overthrow business form their own anti-self-defense squads of questionable legitimacy, which are periodically backed by municipal governments. Yanukovich figures he's hosed and absconds to Russia. The opposition forms some manner of government, and disbands Berkut. Russia offers an expedited citizenship process for former Berkut staff and their families, as well as living space. Some leave, some stay and fight. Odessa's Berkut denies the legitimacy of the current government and refuses to disband. Crimean municipal governments talk about secession. This is still in progress, not sure what the status of this is right now. Tl;dr: it started as a good thing, but as always, the fascists ruined it for everyone. Edit: a handy map! Legend: Brown: territories under opposition control. Pink: territories with active resistance to opposition control. Red: territories where the opposition has no power.  Edit 2: interesting stuff on LJ today. Apparently a Ukrainian battleship refused orders from Kiev, raised the Russian naval ensign, and is headed for Sevastopol. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The movement spills out in the rest of the Ukraine. Western provinces offer little resistance to takeover, Eastern ones offer some, Crimea (specifically Odessa and Sevastopol) have more people showing up to protect government buildings than to storm them. At this point, the opposition thugs in Western regions have gotten their hands on police armouries and are freely using newly acquired firearms and whatever private citizens brought in against the police. All in all armed violence didn't really escalate outside a very narrow area around the Independence Square, and I'm not sure know where you are getting the info about free use of firearms from. (Edit: If anything there is video evidence of pro-Yanukovich titushki indiscriminately firing revolvers into crowds of people from behind the riot police. I'm not saying the Berkut didn't suffer casualties, but I believe most of them were sustained during the first large scale assault on the Kiev barricades.) Also Yanukovich didn't flee while threatened by revolutionary mobs. He held face to face meetings with the opposition and promised to sign their bills before he suddenly changed his mind and hosed off. The main reason is probably that his own political party denounced him as soon as the main wave of violence ended, and happily started to pile dirt on him. Turns out he was a despised man even amongst his "allies". It should speak about the nature of the protests that people didn't even try to loot anything from the lavishly furnished mansions of the President and the General Prosecutor when they were opened. quote:Tl;dr: it started as a good thing, but as always, the fascists ruined it for everyone. Ensign Expendable posted:Peaceful protesters are still kicking around, setting up camps, trying to supply a steady stream of medication (typhoid was pretty rampant, I don't know if it still is) and food. Muscle-men from the opposition crews periodically drop by and "collect" the donations. Requests for supplies to headquarters are either ignored or not fully satisfied. Protester occupied territory is gradually covered in nazist symbols and with ultra-nationalist slogans. This is an oft repeated claim, but it is debunked by just going through documentation of the main rally. Fringe parties made their appearance, and did fight on the barricades (as one should expect from right wing militants) but the fact that a band of hooligans brought some White Pride symbols hardly illegitimizes the tens of thousands people who came to support the event. It is like condemning Occupy because a KuKluxKlan member visited one of the happenings. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
This is the first time I've read that captured policemen were being treated well. Photos of protesters dragging various bleeding bodies in and out of uniform have been posted, as well as reports of the self-defense groups detaining anyone suspected of being one of the ever-present titushki that you can blame anything on.steinrokkan posted:That sounds really unfair? The Right Sector is by far the most prominent radical group, and they have been kept in check AFAIK. Mostly, but then there's always that occasional firebombing of peasant conscripts and indiscriminate torching of government records (oops, looks like someone isn't getting their pensions anymore!) that casts a shadow on this whole peaceful protest business. steinrokkan posted:This is an oft repeated claim, but it is debunked by just going through documentation of the main rally. Fringe parties made their appearance, and did fight on the barricades (as one should expect from right wing militants) but the fact that a band of hooligans brought some White Pride symbols hardly illegitimizes the tens of thousands people who came to support the event. It is like condemning Occupy because a KuKluxKlan member visited one of the happenings. I was illustrating the divide between the people that are out on the streets and the people kicking down doors of government buildings. Their peaceful protest is being poo poo all over by people that wanted to smash something, regardless of the ideology behind the smashings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This is the first time I've read that captured policemen were being treated well. Photos of protesters dragging various bleeding bodies in and out of uniform have been posted, as well as reports of the self-defense groups detaining anyone suspected of being one of the ever-present titushki that you can blame anything on. Specifically in Kiev hundreds of captured officers were transferred to a nearby monastery and kept under vigil of Orthodox priests. That's literally as good a treatment as one can receive in a street battle. If the police suffered injuries in the events that led to their capture, well, that's a different story. Sadly the author deleted the worst video from the protests that demonstrated what i was talking about with the titushki ("https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7jVEF9AZOI"), which was recorded by one of the thugs working with the riot police, and clearly showed people emptying revolvers into the crowd, reloading and going again. Under the watch of the Berkut. While collapsed bodies were lining the street. Also it's quite unplausible to deny existence of the titushki now that Yanukovich's archives are being processed and for basically every attack blamed on them there is a corresponding dossier. Anyway, I feel this would be better suited for the Eastern Europe thread (though it is currently undergoing a breakdown due to the events in Crimea). steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Edit 2: interesting stuff on LJ today. Apparently a Ukrainian battleship refused orders from Kiev, raised the Russian naval ensign, and is headed for Sevastopol. Battleship Potemkin 2: Electric Boogaloo
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Edit 2: interesting stuff on LJ today. Apparently a Ukrainian battleship refused orders from Kiev, raised the Russian naval ensign, and is headed for Sevastopol. The Ukrainian Navy has battleships? Or do you mean "battleship" as in "any ship designed for a battle"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
It was a minor warship. It has been speculated that spetsnaz troops have tried to infiltrate the Ukr. navy and disarm their ships, and most if not all Ukr. boats stationed in Crimea have been reportedly withdrawn to Odessa to avoid capture. It's just a speculation, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:The Ukrainian Navy has battleships? Or do you mean "battleship" as in "any ship designed for a battle"? It was a frigate, the Hetman Sahaydachniy which just so happens to be the largest ship in the Ukrainian navy, the most modern and the flagship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Speaking of fascists, this guy raised Russian flag over the Kharkov municipal hall, possibly sanctioned as part of ongoing demonstrations in the city: Yeah, both sides live in glass houses when it comes to neoNazis joining their ranks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:The Ukrainian Navy has battleships? Or do you mean "battleship" as in "any ship designed for a battle"? Ship meant for battle. I'm not a navy guy, I don't know the difference between different types, let alone how they translate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Can we leave the current events stuff to the bad threads in D&D and GiP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Yes, let's give this a much more A/T vibe. Tell me about modern Russian military capabilities, are they up to snuff with the west? I just checked on Wikipedia that Russia is third and Britain is fourth on the list of military spending, but despite Britain having a higher GDP (2.8trn to 2.2trn respectively) Russia spends 90bn in comparison to Britain's 60.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
uPen posted:It was a frigate, the Hetman Sahaydachniy which just so happens to be the largest ship in the Ukrainian navy, the most modern and the flagship. Is there some sort of international standards or agreement on the classification of ships? The ARA General Belgrano was sometimes called a 'battleship' even if it was formerly the light cruiser USS Phoenix. What would stop a nation, aside from shame, from classifying a tugboat as a battleship if it really wanted to? What separates a CL from a CA and a BB from a BC from a CB?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
maev posted:Yes, let's give this a much more A/T vibe. Tell me about modern Russian military capabilities, are they up to snuff with the west? I just checked on Wikipedia that Russia is third and Britain is fourth on the list of military spending, but despite Britain having a higher GDP (2.8trn to 2.2trn respectively) Russia spends 90bn in comparison to Britain's 60. There has been a recent push for continuation of service after the mandatory term, but the mandatory term has been decreased to 1 year from 3 (my grandfather used to complain that the new enlisted were worthless and couldn't learn anything in a year). This probably resulted in an increase of the officer corps and junior commanders, but the effectiveness of peasant conscripts didn't go up any.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is there some sort of international standards or agreement on the classification of ships? The ARA General Belgrano was sometimes called a 'battleship' even if it was formerly the light cruiser USS Phoenix. What would stop a nation, aside from shame, from classifying a tugboat as a battleship if it really wanted to? What separates a CL from a CA and a BB from a BC from a CB? Light Cruisers (CL) and Heavy Cruisers (CA, the A stands for Armored because reasons) were defined in the various naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Light Cruisers were ships with guns up to 6.1 inches (155 mm), heavy cruisers were ships with guns up to 8 inches (203 mm). Maximum displacement was 10.000 tons. These classifications were never as sharp or helpful as they may seem. The Japanese Mogami class was laid down as light cruisers which later had their guns replaced with larger ones, making them heavy cruisers. The American Brooklyn class cruisers had 15 152 mm guns, giving them arguably more firepower than contemporary US Navy heavy cruisers. The German Deutschland class "pocket battleships" were cruiser sized but armed with battleship-grade guns. With the advent of guided missiles, the whole thing pretty much went out the window anyway. The US Navy in the 70s famously reclassified a bunch of Destroyers as Cruisers because of the "cruiser gap" with the Soviet Union. Germany today operates a bunch of frigates that are referred to as destroyers in foreign literature. The official classification doesn't really tell you anything anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
The Cold War thoroughly messed things up: in one shot, a missile boat with nuclear tipped ordnance could potentially sink more tonnage than both sides lost during the Battle of Jutland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 13:10
|
|