|
Tias posted:..So they wouldn't really be using tanks at all by April 1944? The entry describes the battle such:"First Romanian Panzerdivision held off the Soviet tanks for a single day. At the end of the battle, the Germans managed to drive the Soviets back to the positions they held before the battle." Oh, no. When the Romanians started the war in 1941, they had two tank battalions, one of R-2s, a license-built Czech tank also known as the 35(t) and one of French R-35s. The R-35s were ditched early on as they were excessively unreliable, despite their relative immunity to anti-tank rifles. The Germans respected the bravery of the Romanian tankers, but were leery about giving arms. It wasn't until Stalingrad that the Germans shipped them a few Panzer 3s and 4s, known as T-3s and T-4s respectively, and they were lost at that battle. In 1944 the Romanians did have more armor provided by the Germans, but it was a small amount overall. What I mean by the average infantryman being not used to tanks is that, for example, most Romanian peasants hadn't even seen or heard a tractor go. Veteran soldiers probably would be fine, and I don't want to exaggerate the feeling, just to let you know how poor the country really was. The vast majority of the Romanian army was infantry or cavalry in the least motorized army on that front. If you want to see depressing, you can see how the Romanian armored units fared after the defection. Stalin ran them into the ground, and a division becomes a brigade, which becomes an armored group with an amalgam of everything. The Romanians were able to get their R-2s and R-35s out of service by 1944, but the Soviets made them use everything they had left.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
What was the ethnic makeup of the Romanian military at the time? I'm assuming the territorial lossess excluded ethnic Hungarians.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What was the ethnic makeup of the Romanian military at the time? I'm assuming the territorial lossess excluded ethnic Hungarians. Almost all Romanian, though there were some Germans in the Romanian military, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:If there isn't a concern at the time about making an alliance with Britain that's related to these kind of fears, all you are left with is the suggestion that Ireland didn't enter the war for purely strategic reasons, which I think is highly unconvincing. So I'm not sure what your point is - maybe you could put forward an idea of what you think is going on at the time? That might be easier to interact with. Disinterested posted:I'm not even sure what we can be talking about anymore, which I suppose is partly because the Republican movement is quite fragmentary. It's certainly the case that there is direct contact with the Abwehr - as you acknowledge - so it feels to me that to emphasise that there is no contact with the Nazis is to make a distinction without a difference. The people that 'WERE' the Irish state (that is to say, former members of the IRA), on the other hand, were collaborating with British intelligence against Seán Russell and others: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12848272. Emergency powers were used to deal with large numbers of the IRA, in large part to maintain neutrality and to consolidate the newly formed state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:My most logical interpretation of the situation is that the government of the era was itself rather inclined towards somewhat totalitarian control (although it was a weirdly theocratic mess that could turn against them easily) and also aware that Ireland simply did not have the economical base to actually enter the war as an active participant on either side without ensuring a massive debt to the larger powers. Partially this was due to size, and partly due to just not having much heavy industry suitable for re-purposing. You massively over-estimate the effect of anti-British feeling in the majority of the population, and the knowledge of how bad the Nazis actually were has to be weighed against the "they eat babies" propaganda of WWI within living memory. Articles such as this one point out that the people simply didn't want to go to war, so entering it would have been suicide for Dev's government and caused major domestic problems in addition to those caused by simply being at war. Obviously no factor can be entirely discounted when weighing the scales, but to simplify it to a moral choice 75 years on with the benefit of all the information that has come out since is poor reasoning. That does have to be balanced against the official and unofficial lifelong discrimination against Irishmen who volunteered to fight for the UK, long after the knowledge of how bad the Nazis really were came to full light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:58
|
|
quote:Obviously no factor can be entirely discounted when weighing the scales, but to simplify it to a moral choice 75 years on with the benefit of all the information that has come out since is poor reasoning. I didn't in fact do that, but that is necessarily a problem with any counter-factual question. Nor did I say that anti-British feeling was held by a majority - but a vocal minority is normally enough to cause a significant issue. Your broader based answer is probably closer to the mark. I think it's still a reasonable sized factor; perhaps I rather too readily accepted as read that Ireland was in lovely shape at that time. I do think it was possible to have an insight into the nature of Nazism even at that time though, and it is worth asking why that insight never arrived (or arrived very late) for some people but did for others. Although, as I understand it, there is no real settlement in the historiography about exactly what Dev in particular knew or felt about the Nazis. Some people claim he was sure the Germans were going to win, other people claim he knew about some of the ropey poo poo Hitler was doing as early as 42. It beats me. quote:The fun thing about Dev and how he dealt with former comrades-in-arms is that you can claim that he flat out had Michael Collins murdered and people will just accept that as fact. We've kind of had a low-key version of de-Stalinisation where the mythology built up around him had to be dismantled. Dude made some very bad calls that gently caress things up to this day. I have definitely heard the Dev killed Collins thing stated flat out on a number of occasions uncritically. On the other hand, a lot of figures across cultures who have been in Dev's position have tended to be lovely and ruthless. I don't think it's a coincidence. I have always wondered if the rumours about his actual war record are true. I understand that's a myth being dug at rather vigorously at the moment. Alchenar posted:That does have to be balanced against the official and unofficial lifelong discrimination against Irishmen who volunteered to fight for the UK, long after the knowledge of how bad the Nazis really were came to full light. In fairness, while that was a disgrace, it is worth mentioning that the people who got it in the rear end the worst, as I understand it, were deserters from the Irish army. So I can see why, at the time, shutting people down for doing that (6,000 odd people?) was a big deal. But they probably should have got around to unfucking that situation a lot faster.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That does have to be balanced against the official and unofficial lifelong discrimination against Irishmen who volunteered to fight for the UK, long after the knowledge of how bad the Nazis really were came to full light. Disinterested posted:I didn't in fact do that, Disinterested posted:But they probably should have got around to unfucking that situation a lot faster. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:But they probably should have got around to unfucking that situation a lot faster. Irish governments have this problem with kicking the ball down the field and hoping someone else will deal with it, for example abortion in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think that around 1944, Romania had some Panzer IV's they got from Germany, along with self-propelled anti-tank guns and a bunch of StuGs. Off the top of my head, they had one armored regiment in their armored division, so it was more like one of those pre-ww2 armor divisions than a proper armored division. Didn't most of the German Panzer divisions also have just one tank regiment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Didn't most of the German Panzer divisions also have just one tank regiment? I think that by 1944, they had been reorganized again and were supposed to have two. Of course that didn't work out in reality but, that's Germans for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
German panzer divisions ca 44 had one panzer regiment of two panzer battalions. Some had three panzer battalions. The two panzer regiment division was scrapped in 41
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I'm midway through Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom and finished God's Chinese Son a while back. This taps out my local library, so are there any other reasonably accessible books I could track down about the Tai Ping Rebellion? Something about Shi Dakai would be great, but I'm not picky. Flashman and the Dragon? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Enver Pasha decides to take personal command of the offensive in the Caucasus, which might have something to do with all the army commanders telling him it's an unfeasible bag of bollocks. You know who else took personal command of an offensive despite being assured it'd never work??? That's right!!!!!!! Ahem. There's also more on the horrendously fruitless offensives in Artois, including Louis Barthas's captain refusing a direct order for the first (but not the last) time, and the Daily Telegraph assures its readers that Germany is totally about to run out of bullets. As yet they don't seem to have noticed, but I'm sure it'll happen any day now. Sometime, it'll stop annoying me that they've got the brass neck to print things like that while British gunners are thinking themselves lucky if their ammunition ration is more than ten shells per day, but it's not today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Found a very interesting military history book in the university library I work at that I recall this thread recommending earlier - Shattered Sword, an examination of the Battle of Midway. Not sure if it's still recommended or not, but it's been a very enjoyable read so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Found a very interesting military history book in the university library I work at that I recall this thread recommending earlier - Shattered Sword, an examination of the Battle of Midway. Not sure if it's still recommended or not, but it's been a very enjoyable read so far. Yes, it owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Found a very interesting military history book in the university library I work at that I recall this thread recommending earlier - Shattered Sword, an examination of the Battle of Midway. Not sure if it's still recommended or not, but it's been a very enjoyable read so far. It's a good read and you are correct In finding it enjoyable. I love the minute detail and bomb-counting, it scratches the  itch real good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's a good read and you are correct In finding it enjoyable. I love the minute detail and bomb-counting, it scratches the Yeah, I'm going to order a copy for my nephew who wants a book on the Pacific theatre of WW2 for Christmas. Only a few chapters in and the book's already gone into extensive detail about the larger strategic factors of the war and the course of events up to Midway. Been a long time since I sat down with a good history book to have a read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yes, it owns. That book made it hard to do an assignment because I was too focused on reading the entire thing to actually write my paper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I got a quick question about modern naval combat. It seems like in a modern navy, any naval battles would be decided by local air supremacy and ships chucking missiles at each other from 50-100km away. Aside from CIWS, is there even a reason for ships to have guns nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Eej posted:I got a quick question about modern naval combat. It seems like in a modern navy, any naval battles would be decided by local air supremacy and ships chucking missiles at each other from 50-100km away. Aside from CIWS, is there even a reason for ships to have guns nowadays? land bombardment would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Littoral battles. Also, the guns are dual-purpose and back up the CIWS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Eej posted:I got a quick question about modern naval combat. It seems like in a modern navy, any naval battles would be decided by local air supremacy and ships chucking missiles at each other from 50-100km away. Aside from CIWS, is there even a reason for ships to have guns nowadays? AFAIK the only reason for having them is for coast guard type stuff where you actually have to show the other guy that you have big guns pointed, as well as a slightly less costly and flashy way of shore bombardment. Missiles and fighter planes cost big bucks but shells aren't really that expensive, I guess. Smaller nations still need ships that can shoot poo poo but can't necessarily afford to flush a few mil every time they launch a missile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Eej posted:I got a quick question about modern naval combat. It seems like in a modern navy, any naval battles would be decided by local air supremacy and ships chucking missiles at each other from 50-100km away. Aside from CIWS, is there even a reason for ships to have guns nowadays? Against small targets that would be a waste of a missile. Like those boats that were used for terrorist attacks in the 90s. Though it seems that the navy seems intent on integrating the role of line of sight guns with the function of the Phalanx system, which could probably deal a coup de grace to conventional guns in a relatively short time, though I guess it largely depends on the procurement strategy and budget the navy will be able to secure. Also rail guns promise to provide over-the-horizon capabilities at the fraction of the cost of missiles, but that remains largely academic. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Against small targets that would be a waste of a missile. Like those boats that were used for terrorist attacks in the 90s. Though it seems that the navy seems intent on integrating the role of line of sight guns with the function of the Phalanx system, which could probably deal a coup de grace to conventional guns in a relatively short time, though I guess it largely depends on the procurement strategy and budget the navy will be able to secure. There was a thread a while back talking about future weapons that went off the rails pretty quick. Are railguns not happening now for some reason? Or are they happening but still several decades away or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
There's a lot of hurdles to overcome between the experimental ones that they have now and any practical weapon system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:There was a thread a while back talking about future weapons that went off the rails pretty quick. Are railguns not happening now for some reason? Or are they happening but still several decades away or something? It's totally happening but the prototypes remain in trials. Currently the next major milestone is putting a railgun system aboard a naval vessel and firing it, which will occur in 2016. The system is expected to be paired with an autoloader and other key systems in 2018. Expected deployment is in the mid-2020s, and development progress has been promising. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/07/navy-plans-to-test-fire-railgun-at-sea-in-2016.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Found a very interesting military history book in the university library I work at that I recall this thread recommending earlier - Shattered Sword, an examination of the Battle of Midway. Not sure if it's still recommended or not, but it's been a very enjoyable read so far. It IS a very interesting military history book. I bought it based on this thread and the talk in Grey Hunter's 1st Pacific war thread. That book really deserves a movie to be made about it (I mean, a modern, better one).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Comstar posted:That book really deserves a movie to be made about it (I mean, a modern, better one). Only if 45 minutes into the movie, right before the first bombs land, text scrolls up the screen saying "Doctrine isn't an exciting topic, but it is important to understanding why Kido Butai fought the battle the way they did. Please pay attention for this 20 minute lecture."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:There was a thread a while back talking about future weapons that went off the rails pretty quick. Are railguns not happening now for some reason? Or are they happening but still several decades away or something? The experimental ones they have right now have a horrific level of barrel ware, as in about two shots on average.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Only if 45 minutes into the movie, right before the first bombs land, text scrolls up the screen saying "Doctrine isn't an exciting topic, but it is important to understanding why Kido Butai fought the battle the way they did. Please pay attention for this 20 minute lecture." Simple version of any lecture I can think of coming out of the book so far: "At any given point on any level from captain to Tokyo headquarters, assume the Imperial Navy's leadership did the dumbest thing imaginable to an outside observer who knows what the Americans are doing."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
I'm looking at Battle Cry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's Civil War narrative history, and Ken Burns' Civil War film as gifts for my brother. I can only afford one of the three, though, so any recommendations or comments on them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:I'm looking at Battle Cry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's Civil War narrative history, and Ken Burns' Civil War film as gifts for my brother. I can only afford one of the three, though, so any recommendations or comments on them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Also the whole civil war documentary is on Netflix if either of you have an account.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
It also regularly gets hosted on YouTube. That being said, Ken Burns is probably the best way to get people interested in the Civil War who aren't already. If someone had given me Shelby Foote's book before I saw him on Ken Burn's documentary, I'd have been like, "Thanks!" and then never read it. If your brother is interested in reading history, or in the Civil War specifically, then get the Battle Cry of Freedom. If not, then I'd suggest Ken Burns. Shelby Foote is interesting and an accomplished historian, but I think that his popularity stems from his role in Ken Burns' documentary. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Have to put Shattered Sword down for the night, but god drat Nautilus tried so very hard without accomplishing much of anything, capped off with a faulty torpedo hit against a carrier they didn't know was already doomed. Must have been a very, very frustrating day for that sub's crew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Not just fortification - it's a lot easier to aim a gun when you know exactly where it is, it isn't moving, and you've pre-ranged your aim to all sorts of distances to and over the horizon. A ship, rocking in the waves and moving around, is a far more difficult platform to shoot from than coastal guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
It's also a heck of a lot easier to protect guns when you aren't counting the pounds of topweight you're adding.Cythereal posted:Have to put Shattered Sword down for the night, but god drat Nautilus tried so very hard without accomplishing much of anything, capped off with a faulty torpedo hit against a carrier they didn't know was already doomed. Must have been a very, very frustrating day for that sub's crew. I think she actually does accomplish something in the end, which is nice. Also, isn't it totally painful reading all those bits where Yorktown and her air wing do everything right and the other two blunder around (although major credit to Richard Best for living up to that name when it counted). xthetenth fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Simple version of any lecture I can think of coming out of the book so far: "At any given point on any level from captain to Tokyo headquarters, assume the Imperial Navy's leadership did the dumbest thing imaginable to an outside observer who knows what the Americans are doing." Considering every single American attack up until the last dive bomber attack ended in failure and nothing but near misses and nearly every plane shot down, it came pretty close. One guy gets the exhaust port hit at the end and sinks a That being said, Tarkin's plan of attack at Yavin 4 was much less dumb than every single facet of Japanese plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Mirificus posted:I like how Nelson put it: "A ship's a fool to fight a fort." The pirate Baptiste probably said something along the lines of "They can't sink us if we beach ourselves first!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's also a heck of a lot easier to protect guns when you aren't counting the pounds of topweight you're adding. The best part of the Nautilus's escapade is showing just how lovely early-war Mk14 torpedoes were. For the record, they got a good track and shoot four fish at the carrier. The results? Torpedo 1 - Says gently caress YOU DAD and doesn't leave the tube Torpedo 2 and 3 - Wildy miss the target thanks to lovely gyros Torpedo 4 - Hits DEAD AMIDSHIPS. Naturally, hitting perfectly means that the small needle in the exploder is crushed rather than working properly, and then the warhead falls the gently caress off. Provided the most awkward life preserver for the Kaga's crew, though. The back half of the torpedo is a giant compressed air canister, which happened to float quite nicely after that heavy-rear end warhead was gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:59
|
|
