|
Also in reality terrifying superweapons aren't over-engineered engines of death, they're just very efficient explosive/incendiary devices. Because as a species we loving love blowing poo poo up and/or lighting it on fire, it's a universal constant from our earliest ancestors to today.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
the JJ posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IACglchX9n0 Touche. So in a hypothetical Cold War shooting war between NATO and the Soviets, who runs out of shells first? The Soviet approach just seems less efficient to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:As for the differences between weapons procurement, the process is described here by the CIA. Those diagrams on page 19 remind me of The Andromeda Strain's cutting edge graphics.  Was there some sort of Wang module for these diagrams--I've seen a lot of them in 60-70's books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Ironically, in Wargaming circles John Curry is regarded as the premier historian of the hobby. Partially because he's the only one, but still. ETA: I also notice he mentions Tim Gow basically straight away. It's funny how small wargaming circles really are. He seems to namedrop at least one guy I regularly talk to per book/article. Don Gato posted:Also in reality terrifying superweapons aren't over-engineered engines of death, they're just very efficient explosive/incendiary devices. Because as a species we loving love blowing poo poo up and/or lighting it on fire, it's a universal constant from our earliest ancestors to today. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Uhm. Correct. That's a target large enough that CAS and dive bombers can reliably hit it. Because it's moving 5 kph over good ground, stuck in any remotely soft terrain. Give me a tank sim as good as IL-2 Sturmovik and I'll pray for a 1946 expansion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Touche. So in a hypothetical Cold War shooting war between NATO and the Soviets, who runs out of shells first? The Soviet approach just seems less efficient to me. The Soviet approach is simply to have less, bigger fire missions called in from higher levels. You won't see little platoon commanders calling in the regimental guns and similar stuff like that - those guns are the Colonels' own fire reserve and he's the one who will use them all in concentrated fires to support the battalion that's showing the best promise of success. They would end up using more shells mostly because they had the bigger army and more guns. Both sides would use prepared stockpiles (production runs during a war would never be even remotely enough to keep up) and IIRC both sides had about ~6 weeks of what they calculated as their average ammo use. The Soviets were actually somewhat more paranoid (and in hindsight, perhaps, realistic) when making these calculations. Also, NATO would make a lot of use of unguided everything in such a conflict - not only were precision weapons a lot less capable back in the day, they're also expensive enough that you'd want to use them to kill bridges, CPs, forward supply depots and similar high-value targets. We're using them against personnel and tanks nowadays because when you're fighting some third world excuse for an army or local militants, we can plain and simple afford it. JcDent posted:This is interesting, because the stereotype in countries that had to endure being in Soviet Union is that in soviet Russia, nobody knows what anybody should be doing. They drilled the standard maneuvers into their units during basic and their annual exercises. The basic tenet is to do it like the book says unless you have a serious reason not to - low-level officers have comparatively little actual flexibility or decision-making ability - that's functionally handed to the higher ups. This works in part because of the "one-up" rule: Compared to western armies, the Soviets would do any given task with a unit one size up, IE a job a NATO commander would use a company for would fall to a full battalion etc. Note that at the lower rungs, soviet units did tend to be smaller than western counterparts and lack organic support assets. These were used in a more centralised fashion by the higher-level units. Smaller soviet units being somewhat predictable in how they'd maneuver due to this means that a soviet regimental or divisional CO can confidently do things that would have a NATO general get very nervous - under western doctrines, rapidly turning a division around and advancing along a new axis is a complicated and intricate maneuver that can easiyl turn into a clusterfuck even without doing it in actual contact with the enemy. For a soviet general, it's Tuesday; everyone knows the basic maneuvers at his level and will carry them out as he learned it and report it up if he can't for any reason. This is something that can only really show its true value once you get to division- or even army-size engagements, but when it works, it's brutal as hell to face. Pressure along the entire front and the moment any point looks like it might give, you'll see the attack reinforced rapidly in an escalating manner. And it can go hella fast - for the perhaps most brutal example, see the Red Army rollling over the Japanese in Manchuria in August '45. This was a WWII army group moving through rough terrain against ill-equipped, but dug-in and fanatical defenders. They ripped a hole and sent 6th Guards Tank Army off racing towards Korea, achieving an operational tempo roughly comparable to that of the US Army... the US Army during Desert Storm, that is. Magni fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:My ex says other way around, really. We were talking about this last night and he mentioned that banking was an established thing by the 1620s--Genoa was called "a bank with a city attached to it" in the Middle Ages, and their poo poo was so well-developed that when some British king defaulted on his loans to them it caused a famine. By the 1620s my dudes would have known what banking was and possibly have been exposed to it personally. I think that he might be referring to Edward III's catastrophic default a few centuries earlier? The default ruined a few Italian banks, but the arrival of the Black Death a decade later was what really messed things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:For WW2, what would have stopped giant super death fortress tanks that advanced with a bunch of infantry keeping other infantry off their back? I'm talking tanks 3 or 4 times the size of "regular" WW2 tanks. I'm thinking it would just be artillery fire. Even if the only vulnerability of the giant tank was artillery, what makes you think that the responding military doesn't just shell it? Shells are cheap, monster tanks are not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
And bridges. Don't forget bridges. You're kind of hosed if your Baneblade can't get over rivers and brooks (though Baneblade doesn't really work as an example, because it's relatively fast). As for city fighting... you have the StuH! It's cheap, plentiful, has a very low profile which would probably work well in bouncing off infantry AT round (talking out of my rear end about the last one) and just looks cool! One thing I think about from time to time: in a fantasy land that didn't use WMDs, how long would a WWIII last? As far as I understand. you'd run out of men and materiel a lot faster than in WWII while the replacement rate would likely be glacial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:One thing I think about from time to time: in a fantasy land that didn't use WMDs, how long would a WWIII last? As far as I understand. you'd run out of men and materiel a lot faster than in WWII while the replacement rate would likely be glacial. Well, depends. If the Soviets manage an early breakthrough, they could be at the Rhine before two weeks are over, at which point it's likely to be a fait accompli and armistice. If they don't 6-8 weeks conservatively before some sad soviet second or third echelon guys reach the Rhine after well over half a million dead soldiers on both sides and West Germany having become the world's biggest junkyard. They're unlikely to go any farther than that. Because while with some extreme luck and near-divine intervention you could have a slugfest in Germany without WMDs, one little Motor Rifle soldier over the Rhine means that the French turn Moscow into ash. Magni fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:For WW2, what would have stopped giant super death fortress tanks that advanced with a bunch of infantry keeping other infantry off their back? I'm talking tanks 3 or 4 times the size of "regular" WW2 tanks. I'm thinking it would just be artillery fire. A river
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:As for the differences between weapons procurement, the process is described here by the CIA. "Since 1945, armor has been used frequently to underwrite Soviet politics in East Europe." pg.6 heh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:For WW2, what would have stopped giant super death fortress tanks that advanced with a bunch of infantry keeping other infantry off their back? I'm talking tanks 3 or 4 times the size of "regular" WW2 tanks. I'm thinking it would just be artillery fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law Also why we don't have Gundams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Touche. So in a hypothetical Cold War shooting war between NATO and the Soviets, who runs out of shells first? The Soviet approach just seems less efficient to me. Both sides run out of shells in a fifth of the time that the planners predict.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I wonder if I could apply that to videogames... likely 4X space titles. There's a Russian joke that goes like this: In England, there is great secrecy. One company will not know what another company is doing. In France, there is greater secrecy. A factory will not know what another factory of the same company is doing. In America, there is even greater secrecy, for a worker will not know what his neighbour is doing. The greatest secrecy of all is in Russia, where the worker himself does not know what he's doing! I would say that as in any country, nobody was particularly amazed with the competence of the people that surrounded them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:My favorite detail of Gucciardini's account of the Sack of Rome is that he saw landsknechts forcing Roman nobles to write them checks during the sack. Which means the banks must have still been functioning... The checks are for banks outside the city, right? "Hey, I'm making a withdrawal! I've got some checks to cash. Also, hands up, this is a
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
JcDent posted:And bridges. Don't forget bridges. You're kind of hosed if your Baneblade can't get over rivers and brooks (though Baneblade doesn't really work as an example, because it's relatively fast). The cold war would be significantly different, because the US wouldn't be able to use their nuclear strength to hide a very weak army while they put a whole bunch of money into economic recovery to prop up economies in Europe to prevent unrest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Magni posted:NATO was understandably pretty drat scared of it throughout the Cold War - one major breakthrough and you can kiss everything east of the Rhine goodbye. And then of course NATO decides the best way to counter this is to do exactly what the Soviets want you to do and puts all of their troops deployed as far forward as possible because we wouldn't want to upset some German farmers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:That's not entirely correct, it was more like "you're going to develop weapons faster if we give you this nice space to concentrate in! But oops, is also prison". The prisons weren't a part of the GULAG system, IIRC. Somehow that reminds me of this: quote:You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have the nerve not to manufacture IL-2s until now. Our Red Army now needs IL-2 aircraft like the air it breathes, like the bread it eats. Shenkman produces one IL-2 a day and Tretyakov builds one or two MiG-3s daily. It is a mockery of our country and the Red Army. I ask you not to try the government's patience, and demand that you manufacture more ILs. This is my final warning. I can imagine how much trembling and sweating occurred as that letter was read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
If I'd gotten that letter I'd have sobered up sharpish, holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As far as I remember, some guy designed/redesigned/added the broken chains of that flag in Vienna while the Nazis were still holding the city. Which takes some pretty serious balls. The chains were added after the war, as a symbol that Austria is free again. No holocaust, warcrimes and nazis here, you see? Pretty obvious if you look at our flag, yes? Globocnik, Eichmann, never heard of them. The 181. Infanteriedivision? Basically just tourists in Serbia. Austria had an even higher per capita in NSDAP members than any other place in the Reich. Before the Anschluss, there was a surprising large number of illegal party members - around 100.000. They were well expected to win the next elections, so that was one good reason for Dollfuß. "Wilde Arisierungen" are also a fine choice of words, and you can possibly imagine what it takes that "Der Stürmer" complains about the conditions in Vienna directly after the Anschluss. By the end of the war, there were around 700.000 party members.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Mega-tanks would have worked if they were on rails, of a standard gauge, and if rails were running across all the major battlefields at all the proper angles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Or carried by dirigibles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Mega-tanks would have worked if they were on rails, of a standard gauge, and if rails were running across all the major battlefields at all the proper angles. At that point, why bother with tanks? Lets just use armored trains. *Technically the Schwerer Gustav was an "armored" "train". Theres your mega-tank. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
If NATO had planned an attack, would it really have looked that different from a Soviet attack? I know there was no way it would happen in the Cold War, butI don't think operational doctrine was that different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:If NATO had planned an attack, would it really have looked that different from a Soviet attack? I know there was no way it would happen in the Cold War, butI don't think operational doctrine was that different. I think NATO doctrine pre-AirLand Battle was more of an updated Blitzkrieg in that there's a place you wanna attack through and will force an opening there and only there and then proceed to encirclements and annihilation battles. Soviet Doctrine was more laissez-faire in finding alternate breakthrough points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
AFAIK significant parts of NATO's land forces in Germany didn't even train for (counter)attacking above the tactical level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think NATO doctrine pre-AirLand Battle was more of an updated Blitzkrieg in that there's a place you wanna attack through and will force an opening there and only there and then proceed to encirclements and annihilation battles. What exactly was Air Land Battle and how was it different? Just a closer coordination of air power and ground forces? Did it actually have a better chance at checking a Soviet assault?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:What exactly was Air Land Battle and how was it different? Just a closer coordination of air power and ground forces? It changed the NATO concept for defending western Europe from being basically a static defense-in-depth suppored by tactical fires to being one that relied heavily on counterattacking with armor supported by fires in deep areas. It was largely in response to changes in weapon capability like ATGMs and PGMs that allowed smaller units to delay/disrupt mass armored assaults while mobile protected forces massed for the counter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Here's a pretty big article on ALB: http://www.panzertruppen.org/2011/militar/mh032.pdf It's always come across as being highly politicised to me, as in Airland Battle can be what you want it to be: a strategic 'vision', an operational doctrine, propaganda, a sales brochure, etc. e: There oftentimes wasn't a necessarily single 'NATO concept' on defending Western Europe AFAIK, outside of very macro-level stuff like forward defense as a deployment concept and when and where to introduce tactical nuclear weapons. Different nations/Corps could have very different ways of wanting to fight 'their' battle. e2: on second thought that article has some hilarious late 1980s horseshit inside 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The chains were added after the war, as a symbol that Austria is free again. No holocaust, warcrimes and nazis here, you see? Pretty obvious if you look at our flag, yes? Globocnik, Eichmann, never heard of them. The 181. Infanteriedivision? Basically just tourists in Serbia. I am aware of that, and the flag making things took some balls because Vienna was literally chock full of Nazi Party members. I would still regard is as a pretty effective example of "public diplomacy" I guess. Austria got arguably a better deal then Finland (or anyone in the Eastern Europe occupied by the Red Army), and Finland had to kill a considerable number of Germans to be "neutralized" instead of "vasallized".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It changed the NATO concept for defending western Europe from being basically a static defense-in-depth suppored by tactical fires to being one that relied heavily on counterattacking with armor supported by fires in deep areas. It was largely in response to changes in weapon capability like ATGMs and PGMs that allowed smaller units to delay/disrupt mass armored assaults while mobile protected forces massed for the counter. When you say fires... do you mean the very very hot fires like tiny little stars? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Austria got arguably a better deal then Finland (or anyone in the Eastern Europe occupied by the Red Army), and Finland had to kill a considerable number of Germans to be "neutralized" instead of "vasallized". There was no actual deal to be made because there was no independent Austria between 1938 and 1955, and the Soviet occupation was akin to colonial exploitation. Finland and Romania on the other hand were independent and capable of switching sides in 1944. Romania was fully occupied in the process, Finland got off lighter with a Soviet naval base near Helsinki until 1955.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Animal posted:When you say fires... do you mean the very very hot fires like tiny little stars? Nice! Funnily enough the late 70s/early 80s NATO doctrinal shift was mostly away from fires with a temperature measured in the millions of degrees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I just picked up Team Yankee at a used book sale, so all of this NATO/ Soviet chat couldn't be better timed. Question- is there a consensus emerging about why Soviet equipped armies in Middle East conflicts sucked so bad, or is that still in the process of frustratingly unproductive arguments about export models?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
This may sound retarded but: in all the cold war gone hot talk it always revolves around how far the soviets could get into europe before the nukes got busted out. What I don't understand is: why would the soviets want to do this at all? Like, what would be the point of attacking NATO and building tremendous armies and developing strategic plans to attack NATO. Why would they want to attack at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Animal posted:When you say fires... do you mean the very very hot fires like tiny little stars? No like field/rocket artillery and air-to-ground stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This may sound retarded but: in all the cold war gone hot talk it always revolves around how far the soviets could get into europe before the nukes got busted out. What I don't understand is: why would the soviets want to do this at all? Like, what would be the point of attacking NATO and building tremendous armies and developing strategic plans to attack NATO. Why would they want to attack at all? Because something something international Bolshevism, I think. Maybe the threat of being able to do so would deter blatant fuckery with the Soviet "sphere"? Maybe they feared a MacArthur or Patton president and wanted to be prepared? From what I've been hearing, it sounds like they were more afraid of us than we should have been of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This may sound retarded but: in all the cold war gone hot talk it always revolves around how far the soviets could get into europe before the nukes got busted out. What I don't understand is: why would the soviets want to do this at all? Like, what would be the point of attacking NATO and building tremendous armies and developing strategic plans to attack NATO. Why would they want to attack at all? Why are you asking this question 'why'? They didn't attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:This may sound retarded but: in all the cold war gone hot talk it always revolves around how far the soviets could get into europe before the nukes got busted out. What I don't understand is: why would the soviets want to do this at all? Like, what would be the point of attacking NATO and building tremendous armies and developing strategic plans to attack NATO. Why would they want to attack at all? The military-industrial complex needed a compelling narrative to sell all those contracts for weapons that would never see use in a nuclear exchange.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:10
|
|
