|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Unless you mean they sailed from Hampton Roads straight across the Atlantic to take part in the Overlord landings. This, I'm pretty sure. But it's been ages and my memory is rusty. And yeah I know there's a shitton of naval vessels operating out of the area.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Its interesting that so much of Japanese planning seems cognizant that they were taking a low percentage shot, but not a lot of consideration on how to extricate themselves if it failed. Can anyone think of a good case where the opposite was true, i.e. a war plan fails miserably but the losing side still ends the war in decent position? Great Britain, 1776.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
100 Years Ago Further Reading is going to have to be scaled back. Reading the paper properly just adds too much time to each day and it's the major reason why I haven't been able to build up a decent buffer yet. I'll still have a quick flick through to clip an advert and see if there's anything particularly interesting, but. 30 January: A quiet day as the Germans consolidate their hold on Aubreville, so for all you World War II fans, it's Part 2 of "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" Last time it was "Major political leaders", this time it's "Prominent German politicians and generals". If anyone's obviously missing, give me a shout, as long as the answer isn't "He was too young, doofus". 31 January: I'm short-changing the Eastern Front quite a bit at the moment, but that's what happens when the major English-language work is still one written in 1975. With that in mind, I happily ignore all the details of the Battle of Bolimow in favour of talking about the Germans' failed attempt at using tear gas there. Meanwhile, Herbert Sulzbach is skiving off work in Metz, and Louis Barthas is stitching the English up in Annequin. 01 February: The Ottomans have nearly arrived at Suez, and Kenneth Best moves forward to be with the blokes. The London Underground's Bakerloo Line opens, and a round-up of things that are happening "...in early February", a phrase that makes me swear copiously whenever I encounter it. Last but not least, here are last week's chess answers!  And here are this week's problems, if anyone dares. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Wasn't there a troop ship of some type that participated in the d-day landings that actually was launched from Hampton Roads? I ask because I think it was in the previous iteration of the thread and a bunch of folks said no way and somebody actually provided an infographic. You might be confusing this with the task force in Operation Torch that sailed from North America straight to North Africa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:
Louis Barthas posted:Squad by squad we were going to reclaim our customary billets, when we were very badly received by the townspeople, a large part of whom had returned. They accused us of having looted and pillaged their houses, and called us the worst names. Not feeling especially charitable ourselves, we put the blame on the English, who were occupying part of the village. Oh, that lovable scamp!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Japan should have sent a number of cargo ships ladden with explosives through the Panama Canal destined to commit a kamikaze attack against its locks and other merchant vessels on Pearl Harbor day. Is there any reason why this wouldn't have worked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is there any reason why this wouldn't have worked? Gay Black Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:And here are this week's problems, if anyone dares. My chess is rusty. Top one looks like Ke3, and then the 2nd move depends on what black does. If black captures the white queen or plays Rxe1+ then Ne2 is checkmate. If black instead plays Rxh2 then Ng6 is checkmate as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is there any reason why this wouldn't have worked? It probably would have but like you get in to all these weird questions about literally why did Imperial Japan Do Anything, Really? and then it gets messy. Short answer, they weren't yet quite keen on explicit suicide attacks and they figured they could achieve their war aims without destroying the locks. Part of the decision making apparatus believed that after achieving their war aims and settling an honorable treaty that divided the Pacific in to a Japanese and American sphere of influence that everyone would shake hands and go back to their poo poo - kind of like Russia and Japan post 1905. Why wreck a valuable piece of infrastructure? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Its interesting that so much of Japanese planning seems cognizant that they were taking a low percentage shot, but not a lot of consideration on how to extricate themselves if it failed. Can anyone think of a good case where the opposite was true, i.e. a war plan fails miserably but the losing side still ends the war in decent position?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I think in 30YW terms 'winning' means having money left over to spend on hookers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Still loving these. Thanks for keeping them up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Define "winning:" the Thirty Years' War and a number of the combatants. Definitely the Thirty Years' War and Sweden. The funny part with Sweden is that there probably was a plan but it sort of got lost when Gustav II Adolf got his brains blown out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The funny part with Sweden is that there probably was a plan but it sort of got lost when Gustav II Adolf got his brains blown out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:That definitely counts as "failing miserably," especially since Christina was more interested in ganking some sweet libraries than in making Sweden the head of the Holy Roman Empire or whatever the gently caress her dad wanted to do with his life. Sounds like an improvement to the plans to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Great Britain, 1776. That was a colonial war though, George Washington was never going to sack London. You could as accurately cite the US after Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Wasn't there a troop ship of some type that participated in the d-day landings that actually was launched from Hampton Roads? I ask because I think it was in the previous iteration of the thread and a bunch of folks said no way and somebody actually provided an infographic. If this is what you meant - all the Normandy invasion forces sailed from England, but in the Operation Torch landings in North Africa the Western Task Force troop ships sailed from the US directly to landing on Africa. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That was a colonial war though, George Washington was never going to sack London. You could as accurately cite the US after Vietnam. I know, but the point is that despite the military campaign failing completely, Britain still retained nearly all of the advantages that she enjoyed while the Thirteen Colonies were just that. The US remained bound almost exclusively to Britain in trade relationships, and it would be decades before anything in that relationship really changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:If this is what you meant - all the Normandy invasion forces sailed from England, but in the Operation Torch landings in North Africa the Western Task Force troop ships sailed from the US directly to landing on Africa. Must be then, I guess.  If anyone finds anything further, let me know. It's impressive either way though, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
So apparently NHK produced a documentary claiming that the Atomic Bombings were not a surprise, and that if the leadership wasn't cocking it up warnings could have been issued. This site has a summary of it, apparently: Part 1 Part 2
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I know, but the point is that despite the military campaign failing completely, Britain still retained nearly all of the advantages that she enjoyed while the Thirteen Colonies were just that. The US remained bound almost exclusively to Britain in trade relationships, and it would be decades before anything in that relationship really changed. During the time though, both Britain and France thought Britain losing the 13 colonies would be some disaster of epic proportions that would permanently ruin Britain's trade in the Americas, which is in large part why France backed the colonists and why the war went on for 8 years. That's why Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations said the 13 Colonies leaving would really be no big deal economically and that maybe Britain should just let them, though he couldn't imagine that any country then or in the future would ever voluntarily give up a part of its empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I know a great many people thought that, but it didn't really pan out that way is my point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Sounds like an improvement to the plans to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:So apparently NHK produced a documentary claiming that the Atomic Bombings were not a surprise, and that if the leadership wasn't cocking it up warnings could have been issued. Ah, warnings. "Duck" in your paper wall home. "Cover" behind a child, or maybe one of the infirm. Evacuating a city with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants - on the basis of connecting 'rumors' about bomb projects and a small group of B29s with a peculiar callsign mind you - sounds like a nasty task in peactime already, and then there's the fact that Japan massive, and ever worsening logistical problems hitting it throughout 1945. Also, from what I've gathered from Richard Rhodes' and Alex Wellerstein's stuff, not a lot of people were institutionally up to speed with nuclear fission in Japan. IMO its a bit of a stretch to claim that a bomb of that nature, and with those particular effects, wasn't a major surprise to them. e: I feel a bit like an rear end since parts of the documentary seems to go into it some more, especially with the details about who was connecting the dots re: Nagasaki, but I still don't think "warnings could have been issued" is a very plausible point to take away from all this. Koesj fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Really the most damning thing from that is that they didn't scramble interceptors against the bomber formation. IIRC the B-29s didn't have a fighter escort with them and article notes that planes capable of reaching the B-29s were nearby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Really the most damning thing from that is that they didn't scramble interceptors against the bomber formation. IIRC the B-29s didn't have a fighter escort with them and article notes that planes capable of reaching the B-29s were nearby. Especially since that was the second go-around, and they knew what to look for now. As for the warnings, yeah the A-bomb is different than a firebomb. The documentary has a woman who survived the bombing in an underground shelter, but such things were only available to regional headquarters or such (where she worked).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Really the most damning thing from that is that they didn't scramble interceptors against the bomber formation. IIRC the B-29s didn't have a fighter escort with them and article notes that planes capable of reaching the B-29s were nearby. Hirohito did 8/6?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hirohito did 8/6? More what air defense zone commander doesn't throw planes at the easiest bomber formation to destroy ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:More what air defense zone commander doesn't throw planes at the easiest bomber formation to destroy ever. What I've read is that the Enola Gay was deliberately flying at 30,000+ feet, higher than Japanese interceptors could go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:What I've read is that the Enola Gay was deliberately flying at 30,000+ feet, higher than Japanese interceptors could go. The Shiden Kai, which the documentary specifically claims was available to intercept Bockscar, could reach 35k. Granted that it couldn't climb that fast, but "an atomic bomb is coming" means you should at least try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I know, but the point is that despite the military campaign failing completely, Britain still retained nearly all of the advantages that she enjoyed while the Thirteen Colonies were just that. The US remained bound almost exclusively to Britain in trade relationships, and it would be decades before anything in that relationship really changed. Plenty change as a result. The US loving broke the frontier Indians who the Brits got to join them which paved the way for a lot of expansion. Perhaps even more importantly the Brits gave up on maintaining diplomatic ties with the ohio and Mississippi River basin tribes which really left them in the lurch over the next few decades. Britain largely washing it's hands of the region was pretty key to the US expanding westward as fast as it did. The other thing to remember is that the war of 1812 has to be seen in the context of the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon needing cash is what fueled the Louisiana purchase. War between the US and England wouldn't come for another decade but the US's initial beef with England also had a lot of roots in the foreign policy it was conducting to try and deal with Napoleonic France. Those two events together - the purchase and getting England to butt out of direct dealings with non Canadian tribes - went a huge way toward making the US a continental power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The funny part with Sweden is that there probably was a plan but it sort of got lost when Gustav II Adolf got his brains blown out.  Gunny Gus says never tip your fedora with a loaded pistol, folks. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This is clearly a man who plans. Judging by his girth, those are dinner plans. I'm also bad at photoshop, comedic timing and comedy. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Gunny Gus says never tip your fedora with a loaded pistol, folks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
I like the idea of Gunny Gus Tactical Tips.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
100 Years Ago February 2: The Ottomans finally arrive at the Suez Canal; and a look at how landlords in Glasgow are engaging in blatant profiteering, and how the local residents are organising to defend themselves against shameless rent increases. February 3: The Ottomans come on strongly against the canal, and are repelled with heavy losses. February 4: The Ottomans unexpectedly retreat from the canal. Germany declares unrestricted submarine warfare for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Plenty change as a result. The US loving broke the frontier Indians who the Brits got to join them which paved the way for a lot of expansion. Perhaps even more importantly the Brits gave up on maintaining diplomatic ties with the ohio and Mississippi River basin tribes which really left them in the lurch over the next few decades. Britain largely washing it's hands of the region was pretty key to the US expanding westward as fast as it did. But how long does all that take to really play out? Obviously an independent US now rapidly spreading across the Appalachians has huge ramifications on history going forward, but I'm pretty sure there was little effect on the British balance sheet for the first 20 years at least. The native tribes in the Old Northwest were closely aligned with Britain, but it takes two or three decades before the US really starts getting overly involved there. Obviously relations do turn sour once Napoleon starts running about, but getting 20 years of reasonably good relations and trading dependency seems like a pretty good deal given the complete military defeat in the Revolutionary War. If you examine it from a purely British perspective, I don't think the balance sheet changes all that much in the immediate aftermath of Yorktown. Which I don't think was really the case for the Spanish colonies in the Americas. That's all my impression anyway, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the period, so if I'm way off base, I'm all ears. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:And always wear your glasses into a fight! Never charge into fog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:But how long does all that take to really play out? Obviously an independent US now rapidly spreading across the Appalachians has huge ramifications on history going forward, but I'm pretty sure there was little effect on the British balance sheet for the first 20 years at least. The native tribes in the Old Northwest were closely aligned with Britain, but it takes two or three decades before the US really starts getting overly involved there. Obviously relations do turn sour once Napoleon starts running about, but getting 20 years of reasonably good relations and trading dependency seems like a pretty good deal given the complete military defeat in the Revolutionary War. No, you're right, economically at least. American imports of British goods actually surpassed what they had been in the colonial period within like 10 years of the war ending. Which really shouldn't be surprising, considering how rapidly the population was growing, but it flew in the face of previous economic theory that said the trade should gradually die off as the US produced its own goods. There's evidence that independence did somewhat hurt the British Caribbean colonies for a while, mostly because the British insisted on slapping a few tariffs on the triangular trade between them and the now-independent US, but the sugar islands were inevitably decreasing in importance anyway due to competition, and anyway, obviously anything that reduced the profitability of Caribbean sugar production was ultimately A Good Thing for humanity. I do agree with him about Louisiana Territory. Without Napoleon desperately needing cash, the US would probably have wound up fighting a war with France over it eventually, since US-France relations were none too hot (to put it lightly) in the preceding decades anyway. Not sure about the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region. One thing to remember is that the colonies were rapidly gobbling up Native American territory by "treaty" even in the 1760s-early 1770s, and some of the plans for further expansion being floated to the British government were ironically derailed mostly by increasing hostility between the colonies and motherland. I think western expansion would have continued at a pretty steady pace regardless of most anything, but if the British had been in charge it might have been more Canada-like, with larger reservations made for major allied tribes like the Iroquois. One thing both the British government and then later the US federal government had a complete inability to do was prevent border settlers from spilling over and squatting on Indian Territory, which led to further conflicts. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:47
|
|