|
Cyrano4747 posted:Oh yeah, no question about that. You want to see a total intolerance for military casualties look at Europe. Admittedly their protesters seem to care a bit more about civilian casualties and collateral damage on the other side, but jesus loving christ the coverage when a couple career military officers get blown up doing a job that they've trained 20+ years for. Do those incidents really become that big of a deal in the States? I mean based on what you're writing it's clear that the answer is yes, but as a Canadian we get tons of spillover American news, and none of that seems to make it up here. Granted I was a young teenager when the Yugoslavia stuff was going on, but nothing from Second Iraq made the news here. But even so, we're talking 3 jet shootdowns from Yugoslvia, and all of zero fixed wing jet shootdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan (albeit a few from friendly fire plus 2 C-130s). Using drones to replace fixed wing jet aircraft would be inconsequential in these non-peer wars except for the friendly fire shoot downs, as I imagine most of the equipment failures would still be happening during training missions anyway. The helicopters are a different story, those did tend to make the news up here, but since you're using the helos to move men, you're never going to fight wars like Iraq or Afghanistan and not suffer those losses. E: I guess I would add too that this matters even less for bombings in places like Pakistan or Yemen, where the incursion is going to be unopposed either way. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Sep 29, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 23:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Do those incidents really become that big of a deal in the States? I mean based on what you're writing it's clear that the answer is yes, but as a Canadian we get tons of spillover American news, and none of that seems to make it up here. Granted I was a young teenager when the Yugoslavia stuff was going on, but nothing from Second Iraq made the news here. But even so, we're talking 3 jet shootdowns from Yugoslvia, and all of zero fixed wing jet shootdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan (albeit a few from friendly fire plus 2 C-130s). Using drones to replace fixed wing jet aircraft would be inconsequential in these non-peer wars except for the friendly fire shoot downs, as I imagine most of the equipment failures would still be happening during training missions anyway. There was a lot of coverage about Canadian soldiers dying in Afghanistan, I'd say it's as big of a deal and talking point in Western Canada. If you're only talking about planes getting hit, then I guess our relative lack of aircraft can answer for that. Although I can't wait until the first F-35s get whacked and that 150m dollards crashes into a rock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Was reading about the Korean war on wikipedia and the main article says that "experienced Soviet generals" planned the north korean attack. I've been trying to find out who the generals were but even going back a few pages in the google results is giving me nothing. Does anyone else have some better sources/ is this known?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Outside Albert, the French are still just about in possession of Maricourt and Thiepval. The Germans renew their efforts, this time concentrating on pushing their opponents off Bazentin Ridge, in their continuing quest to find somewhere for the Kaiser to go up and see his house from. In not entirely unrelated news, the salient at St Mihel is still holding out against heavy counter-attacks. Meanwhile, the siege artillery last seen bombarding Maubeuge has been transferred to Antwerp, with a gratifyingly large number of spiky helmets in tow. The BEF is still winding its way north. Reinforcements are being gathered in Blighty, but they're still not quite ready to leave. The Royal Marines are easily removed from the Channel ports, and this is done, but they could still do with a lot more men. Fortunately, someone has a Good Idea up his sleeve, and soon will be the time to play it. Enter the Royal Naval Division, a classic example of a Good Idea on paper, and an excellent thing to ask raving Churchill fanboys about (along with the Siege of Sidney Street and the 1945 general election). The Navy had a problem; unlike the Army, which was relatively well-suited to absorbing large numbers of men, there are only so many ships, and only so many people who can crew them. Consequently, there are a large number of activated Navy reservists and new volunteers sitting around the place making it look untidy. Churchill did a quick head count in mid-August, and realised that literally being able to pull 8,000 new infantrymen out of his arse could potentially be a very useful career move; and not too soon after that, the extremely surprised matelots found themselves being organised into infantry battalions (named like ships; Drake, Nelson, Hood, and so on) and promised rifles of their very own (which would arrive a month or so later, just in time for the chaps to receive two whole days of instruction). A few officers were transferred over from the Army, but they were very much the exception. It's very hard to avoid the temptation to flippantly describe them as the Navy playing at soldiers; this is hardly the Fleet Air Arm. So now there are 8,000 sailors waving guns around, and Churchill has found somewhere for them to go. The theory is that they and the Marines will be able to stiffen the Belgian garrison just long enough for General Capper to arrive with the new 7th Division, and then the Germans will be in all kinds of trouble trying to root them out of the fortifications around Antwerp; by which time the rest of the BEF will have secured the Channel ports, and very soon after that everyone will be marching on Berlin, pint bottles of champagne all round. All he needs now is a decent excuse to volunteer them for the role. Never mind that none of them have been trained as infantrymen; none of them have such luxuries as machine-guns, horses, water bottles, entrenching tools, detachments of Engineers, fighting experience, tactical knowledge, and any of the other things that any given Army battalion might find itself in possession of. Never mind that they all think of themselves as sailors, proud members of the Senior Service, and if they wanted to be in the Army they'd have joined the Army. I'm sure it will all end well. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, that German Army marching on Warsaw begins to meet Russian resistance at the River Vistula. This is the result of von Hindenburg giving the Russians the derriere velocite out of Prussia, pausing to look around and see how his Austrian allies are getting on, and going "wait, what the gently caress are you all doing over there?" The Austrian retreat has left Silesia potentially wide open, and a new 9th Army has been quickly formed to do something about it, presumably with muttered imprecations along the lines of "if you want a job doing properly, do it yourself..." Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
It's the 'infantry battalions given the names of warships' that gives it the extra, special Churchillian touch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's the 'infantry battalions given the names of warships' that gives it the extra, special Churchillian touch. They weren't given the names of warships, per se. They were named after famous Royal Navy admirals (Nelson, Hawke, Anson, etc.). All in all, it was a pretty good recruiting gimmick.  e: have some rather constipated-looking sailors while we're at it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I'm betting those in the posters were better equipped than the actual men
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
So after reading about Churchill's escapades in this thread, does history actually look kindly back on him, or do they mostly see him as the blowhard, glory-seeking, somewhat incompetent politician seen in the thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
I can't speak for all of history, but as much as I dislike a lot about Churchill he had one very important characteristic: tenacity. He just kept coming back and would not quit when something went wrong; he'd just return with another angle. That can be bad, but it's not necessarily awful to have a leader who simply will not give up in the face of adversity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:And, of course, it was almost required by King's Regulations for a unit whose men found themselves shoved into something that looked (and smelled) suspiciously like a cattle truck to amuse themselves by moo-ing or baa-ing loudly whenever they passed through a town, or anywhere else that had civilians hanging around. PittTheElder posted:The modern discourse on drones is stupid as gently caress, the discussion should be about the extra-legal killings; Cyrano4747 posted:No, I was just vaguely generalizing based on the coverage I remember from a few incidents of Bundeswehr officers getting IED'd the last time I was going through Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:Was reading about the Korean war on wikipedia and the main article says that "experienced Soviet generals" planned the north korean attack. I've been trying to find out who the generals were but even going back a few pages in the google results is giving me nothing. Does anyone else have some better sources/ is this known? The source cited on Wikipedia says on page 30 that Major General Smirnov and then Lieutenant General Bashilev headed the military advisory group. If you haven't already checked that, it might be worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:I can't speak for all of history, but as much as I dislike a lot about Churchill he had one very important characteristic: tenacity. He just kept coming back and would not quit when something went wrong; he'd just return with another angle. That can be bad, but it's not necessarily awful to have a leader who simply will not give up in the face of adversity. It's a better trait in the leader of a sea power where a given mistake won't lose the war outright, but it can definitely be useful in that case. His penchant for the ridiculous would have been a lot worse in, say, France.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I always find it amusing that "extra-legal" is basically a fancy way of saying "outside the law". Funny how it sounds when you change that.  Yes? Extra-legal isn't even really dressing it up, it's a pretty strong term for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Slaan posted:So after reading about Churchill's escapades in this thread, does history actually look kindly back on him, or do they mostly see him as the blowhard, glory-seeking, somewhat incompetent politician seen in the thread? Eh, history loves its winners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
what do you mean, it's like being legal but extra, so it's like, double-legal 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:what do you mean, it's like being legal but extra, so it's like, double-legal doublepluslegal
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Slaan posted:So after reading about Churchill's escapades in this thread, does history actually look kindly back on him, or do they mostly see him as the blowhard, glory-seeking, somewhat incompetent politician seen in the thread? He was incredibly talented, smart, and driven. His problem was that he had no training whatsoever in operational warfare command and so all his schemes to help win the war didn't include pesky considerations of logistics or anything like that. In WW2 that was fine because Alan Brooke was there to stop his crazy getting anywhere. In WW1 the problem was that Fisher didn't have the energy to argue with him for hours on end every time he came up with a scheme. Churchill is probably the man most responsible for the fact that the Second World War ended in 1945 and not 1940. It takes a lot to balance against that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:He was incredibly talented, smart, and driven. His problem was that he had no training whatsoever in operational warfare command and so all his schemes to help win the war didn't include pesky considerations of logistics or anything like that. In WW2 that was fine because Alan Brooke was there to stop his crazy getting anywhere. In WW1 the problem was that Fisher didn't have the energy to argue with him for hours on end every time he came up with a scheme. Even if Churchill had died from whiskey before WWII, the Germans couldn't have invaded Britain with their fleet of swan pedal boats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Even if Churchill had died from whiskey before WWII, the Germans couldn't have invaded Britain with their fleet of swan pedal boats. The question isn't if they could, the question is if there was someone in the UK who a) realize that they couldn't and b) was able to convince the people that they couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Churchill is probably the man most responsible for the fact that the Second World War ended in 1945 and not 1940. It takes a lot to balance against that. How could the war have ended in 1940?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How could the war have ended in 1940? Because Hitler would have won, if it weren't for that meddling Churchill  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How could the war have ended in 1940? I think it's that the Germans might have been able to take the British to terms even without an invasion, were it not for the management of British morale, of which Churchill was a large part of. Personally I think the Germans presented far too much of an existential threat for the British to seek terms, but I can understand where it's coming from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How could the war have ended in 1940? Hitler could have had a stroke, together with the rest of the high-level Nazi-leadership. I guess this would have ended all plans to expand eastward into Russia, thus ending the war with everyone forgetting about silly "Lebensraum" nonsense.  Joking aside, peace with Britain would have just ended the war with Britain, not the second World War. The invasion of Russia would still happen, of course. And the Japanese would still be doing their thing, dragging the US into the war. I can't see Britain staying neutral after all this new poo poo happens, so most likely is, they would have re-entered the war in 1942, or 1943 at the latest. The thing is, you can't really have a lasting peace with nations trying to expand without all reason. They will just continue to expand, until they crash and burn at the end. Libluini fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Without Churchill it's likely that Britain comes to a negotiated peace in 1940. People forget that despite the ridiculousness of Sealion, Britian literally had no plan for the war beyond the Fall of France other than 'shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible, hope for a miracle'. Britain's negotiated exit and acceptance of German dominance of Europe in mid-1940 doesn't stop Barbarossa, but it does mean the end of World war. When Hitler invades the Soviet Union the attitude in the UK and US is going to be 'good, let the bastards bleed each other dry'. Without an Atlantic War it's unlikely that Hitler declares war on the US after Pearl Harbour, so the Pacific war becomes a strictly local affair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Without Churchill it's likely that Britain comes to a negotiated peace in 1940. People forget that despite the ridiculousness of Sealion, Britian literally had no plan for the war beyond the Fall of France other than 'shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible, hope for a miracle'. Will Senpai notice Hitler in this timeline?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Without Churchill it's likely that Britain comes to a negotiated peace in 1940. People forget that despite the ridiculousness of Sealion, Britian literally had no plan for the war beyond the Fall of France other than 'shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible, hope for a miracle'. Well, yeah. But what happens after Hitler destroys the Sowjet Union, while Japan and the US are duking it out in the Pacific? There were those weird ideas among some Nazis of striking at the heart of the Jewish world conspiracy, after all. And with a victorious Germany and Britain's fleets neutralized, a reverse-D-day wouldn't be that wild of an idea anymore. Of course not he would've allied with the US. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Libluini fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
If Hitler had been black and gay and could breath fire do you think he would have invaded the US?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Waci posted:If Hitler had been black and gay and could breath fire do you think he would have invaded the US?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Without Churchill it's likely that Britain comes to a negotiated peace in 1940. People forget that despite the ridiculousness of Sealion, Britian literally had no plan for the war beyond the Fall of France other than 'shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible, hope for a miracle'. A British negotiated exit also throws off the Pacific war quite significantly. Without Britain being under siege in Europe, Japan may think twice about an offensive against the combined strength of both the Royal Navy and the US Navy at the same time. This combined with Germany getting along a bit better against Stalin may result in the army faction wining-out in Japan with a land based strategy against China (or Russia). Quite a few interesting butterflies, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Blut posted:This combined with Germany getting along a bit better against Stalin may result in the army faction wining-out in Japan with a land based strategy against China (or Russia). Ending the land war in China in order to resume US oil supplies, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Blut posted:A British negotiated exit also throws off the Pacific war quite significantly. Without Britain being under siege in Europe, Japan may think twice about an offensive against the combined strength of both the Royal Navy and the US Navy at the same time. This combined with Germany getting along a bit better against Stalin may result in the army faction wining-out in Japan with a land based strategy against China (or Russia). Now we only need the major German nuclear researcher not to be on the drugs all the time, and we could have a fine mess. In an alternative universe, that is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Blut posted:A British negotiated exit also throws off the Pacific war quite significantly. Without Britain being under siege in Europe, Japan may think twice about an offensive against the combined strength of both the Royal Navy and the US Navy at the same time. This combined with Germany getting along a bit better against Stalin may result in the army faction wining-out in Japan with a land based strategy against China (or Russia). Would such a negotiated exit impact British activities against Japan? Or would it instead have made Germany-Japan arrangements pointless given the changes in German-Soviet relations? I think the inclusion of the Soviet Union in the Allied column was a bit of an act of convenience, in that they were fighting the same enemy and the European theater would have been split among a line between Communism (which Hitler saw as enemy and neither US nor Britain saw as all that friendly to boot) and a Capitalism/Fascism alliance in which similar interests are served. This is complicated by the Holocaust since I am not sure whether such an alliance would tolerate the genocide (without purpose that is, given the history of both US and UK to happily "clear away unwanted inhabitants" when they want land or resources) or whether it would have been simply ignored as "oh, just political housecleaning" while conveniently suppressing and ignoring all evidence of genocide. This is a pretty interesting topic but it runs the risk of lapsing into the realm of nonmilitary topics like politics and diplomacy, not to mention the distant theorycraft exemplified by the phrase "gay black Hitler." I wonder if a thread focused on this sort of diplomatic theorycraft would be welcomed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Thinking about this makes me notice that I don't know much about the early war Africa and Middle east actions. Wouldn't Italy be still at war with the British over the colonies? And wasn't access to oil an issue there too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
I'm assuming it's almost a given that if the Atlantic war weren't a thing and Hitler wasn't convinced that US intervention on the UK's behalf was inevitable one way or the other, that he just ditches the alliance with Japan when Pearl Harbour happens. a) it's not like they're helping against the USSR and b) it's not like Hitler ever held to any treaty the moment it stopped being convenient. e: I'd also assume that with a UK exit from the war, pressure in the US to 'do something' about Germany falls off considerably. e2: and yes, we're deep in gay black hitler territory, but that's kinda my point in response to the OP. Churchill is so important to history that to remove his influence on events immediately sends you off the deep-end of counterfactuals and those counterfactuals are probably all bad for the world. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:Thinking about this makes me notice that I don't know much about the early war Africa and Middle east actions. Wouldn't Italy be still at war with the British over the colonies? And wasn't access to oil an issue there too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Grant was so sanguine he sent a division of VI Corps to get rolled at Monocacy, along with some militia and supply guards, and sacked Lew Wallace after the loss. Only then did he load up additional reinforcements, not "two full days" before Early arrived. Taking even lightly fortified positions in the ACW was an enormous task even for armies that enjoyed massive numerical superiority and robust supply lines. In fact, I can't think of a single example of a fortified city being taken by any sort of direct assault: siege/maneuver was the only effective option. The reason that "hostile territory" is particularly relevant in this scenario is that Early's formation was wholly reliant on foraging for their sustainment, which means that siege wasn't really an option. It was also a very poor formation from a capability standpoint: poorly equipped, falling apart from desertion, etc. Sending the VIII Corps out to meet them in the field was strictly a political concession, it was not necessary from an operational perspective. Waci posted:If Hitler had been black and gay and could breath fire do you think he would have invaded the US? This stuff is getting really old
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Dudes, it's literally the same thing in another language.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
You know, all this talk about oil availability makes it seem like the greatest counterfactual of modern history would have been a bunch of dinosaurs deciding to die in different places. Has there been any other resource in history whose location and access has dictated events as much as oil has?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Tomn posted:You know, all this talk about oil availability makes it seem like the greatest counterfactual of modern history would have been a bunch of dinosaurs deciding to die in different places. Has there been any other resource in history whose location and access has dictated events as much as oil has? Spices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 15:37
|
|
