|
The Soviets were using some sub-par formations from Ukraine, and Finland's marshy, wooded territory with few roads does not lend itself to mechanized warfare. Also peep the timeframe over which the war occurred. It's cold as gently caress in the winter in Finland
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Also, Simo Hayha is personally responsible for at least 0.2% of those confirmed Soviet dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:
The Soviet Union went into Finland with very poor knowledge of what they were getting into. There were no maps of the Mannerheim line, and not enough troops concentrated there to attack it in the best of conditions. In addition, the Red Army expected the fighting to be very symbolic. The workers and peasants of Finland were supposed to revolt in solidarity and form a government led by a Soviet friendly leader, defended by a Soviet friendly army. Therefore the Red Army didn't need things like skis, camouflage gear, off road transport. They would walk into Helsinki to greet their proletarian comrades and everything was going to be hunky dory. Then all those soldiers ready for a quick and easy campaign ran into a well prepared defensive line they had no knowledge of. Bound to the roads, entire divisions starved and froze to death because some squads on skis would completely cut off their supply lines. There were no heated tents, no tanks to storm the fortifications (their armour was thin and guns were vastly insufficient against the thick bunker walls). The second stage of the war was where the Red Army actually prepared for the war they were going to fight. They assembled a 3:1 advantage in men, brought in heavy tanks with high caliber guns, armoured sleds, heated tents, winter camo suits, ski units. Intelligence on where the bunkers were allowed corps level artillery to effectively fire. Also Voroshilov was fired, which helped out quite a bit. With this army, success was actually achieved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:In addition, the Red Army expected the fighting to be very symbolic. The workers and peasants of Finland were supposed to revolt in solidarity and form a government led by a Soviet friendly leader, defended by a Soviet friendly army. Therefore the Red Army didn't need things like skis, camouflage gear, off road transport. They would walk into Helsinki to greet their proletarian comrades and everything was going to be hunky dory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Kick in door, whole rotten structure, etc? It feels more like "Knock really hard on the door and the owners will not only let you in, but help you replace the building with one more to your liking." Instead they knocked really hard and the door swung outward on a spring and broke their nose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Did the Russians lay a groundwork for a Socialist takeover in Finland (that never materialized), or was it all just wishful thinking?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I doubt they actually believed in it. They just looked at the troop numbers and went "it's not like we can lose this, anyway".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Since there was talk and questions about RAF Wunderwaffe, here's a few examples of some projects they undertook: Blackburn's B.20  Boulton Paul P.100  Boulton Paul P.92  The P.92 as designed, with large turret  Bristol's F.18/37  Handley Page HP.75  Miles M.39b  Saunders-Roe SARO SRA1  Japan had some super whacky designs too! Pa.400  Nakajima`s Fugaku (With 12(!) engines) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Pa.400 Probably the coolest thing I've ever seen. The Bristol F18 seems like a forward-looking, sensible design. How come it never got past the whacky project phase? Too unconventional compared to the Typhoon/Tempest?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Probably the coolest thing I've ever seen. No need for it would be my guess. The RAF's existing inventory was doing fine (I think, not a RAF scholar) and it was clear to most that jets were going to be the next big thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The Bristol F18 seems like a forward-looking, sensible design. How come it never got past the whacky project phase? Too unconventional compared to the Typhoon/Tempest? My book covering British experimental planes has this to say about the Bristol F.18/37. "One basic design was proposed by Bristol which had three alternative engines, Bristol 'Centaurus', Napier Sabre or Rolls-Royce Vulture. No performance data survives but six machine guns were mounted in each wing outside the main wheels while a 100gal (455lit) fuel tank was housed in each inner wing. All versions had a span of 42ft (12.8m) while the respective lengths were 30ft (9.1m), 30ft 4in (9.2m) and 30ft 8in (9.3m)." I would assume that the design was too radical for its time. Specification F.18/37 also had these candidates: Gloster F.18/37, Hawker Tornado, Hawker Typhoon, Supermarine Type 324, Supermarine Type 325. The Tornado used the unreliable Rolls-Royce Vulture and was dropped in favor of the Typhoon. The Supermarine planes never made it past the drawing board, although they would've looked like a cross between the spitfire and a beaufighter. Gloster's F.18/37 looks surprisingly similar to the de Havilland Vampire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I mostly have an idea about US planes, but there's a decent number of perfectly normal looking planes that they just couldn't get working well enough or the designers were strained too far to get the design in competitive shape.Ensign Expendable posted:The Soviet Union went into Finland with very poor knowledge of what they were getting into. There were no maps of the Mannerheim line, and not enough troops concentrated there to attack it in the best of conditions. I've been meaning to ask this for a while, didn't the Soviets also do some messed up things to their organization before that war that meant their army wasn't putting decently set up combined arms formations in the field that they were still trying to fix when Barbarossa came around? xthetenth fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:No need for it would be my guess. The RAF's existing inventory was doing fine (I think, not a RAF scholar) and it was clear to most that jets were going to be the next big thing. F.18/37 was for a 1937 specification. The RAF was pretty good about numbering/indexing their specifications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
nevermind, didnt read far enough into the thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Probably the coolest thing I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:F.18/37 was for a 1937 specification. The RAF was pretty good about numbering/indexing their specifications. Ah, was not aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Kanine posted:nevermind, didnt read far enough into the thread Yeah, this is the second time this video has been posted. I don't see what it's proving re. the quoted post. The gun was known as the woodpecker by the Allies because of its characteristically staggered fire combine with its low fire rate per minute. E: Didn't reply fast enough
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Did the Russians lay a groundwork for a Socialist takeover in Finland (that never materialized), or was it all just wishful thinking? Kind of? There was a leadership structure prepared (not actually in Finland though) and some army units made up of Finns to serve as the new Finnish army, but I think they expected the Finnish Communist party to achieve much more than they did. Tevery Best posted:I doubt they actually believed in it. They just looked at the troop numbers and went "it's not like we can lose this, anyway". Not really. The ratio of troops dedicated to attacking the Mannerheim line was about 1:1 with the defenders, which is suicidally low. The rest of the troops were dedicated to other sections of the front. xthetenth posted:I've been meaning to ask this for a while, didn't the Soviets also do some messed up things to their organization before that war that meant their army wasn't putting decently set up combined arms formations in the field that they were still trying to fix when Barbarossa came around? Kind of. First, you have the Great Purge. This means anyone with ambition is gone, anyone with aptitude for new technical fields (since hey, turns out that involves reading lots of foreign literature and staying in contact with foreign colleagues) is gone, and if you graduated the academy as a fortunate time, congratulations! You are now catapulted up the ranks into a chair that's still warm and just a tad moist. Try not to gently caress up. By the way, holding exercises and having people die or equipment break during these exercises counts as loving up. Turns out combined arms training requires a lot of risky things, so it wasn't done. Training to assault fortifications? What for? The glorious Red Army will swiftly rout any attacker and trample them during a chaotic retreat back to their lair. After the Winter War, the Red Army came to a lot of conclusions some better than others. One of the conclusions was to expand the army, so junior commanders were again propelled into roles too big for their shoes and green cadets took their place. There was also a problem with experienced NCOs, leading to poor discipline among the common men in terms of maintaining equipment and keeping track of it. Also, nobody expected the war to come as soon as it did, so all the production goals were made with the assumption that there were a few years to fulfill them. Instead of polishing the T-34, every designer was busy with the T-34M, the KV-1 was similarly going to be replaced with the KV-3 in 1941 and then 4, or 5 (built, trialled and decided upon in 1942). As a result, nobody really practiced with these new tanks that would soon be obsolete anyway. Drivers didn't practice driving, infantry didn't practice following (turns out the T-34 in first gear is just a little too fast for infantry to comfortably follow, oops), etc. In addition to all those woes, the Red Army still hasn't solved their heavy tractor problem, limiting the mobility of strategic reserve and corps level artillery. A new design to solve these problem was due, you guessed it, by the end of 1941.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yeah, this is the second time this video has been posted. I don't see what it's proving re. the quoted post. The gun was known as the woodpecker by the Allies because of its characteristically staggered fire combine with its low fire rate per minute. I believe I got carried away by my love of wacky machine guns, the can fire for 24 hours thing is most likely me misremembered something else, oh well
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Probably the coolest thing I've ever seen. It had a ton of potential. It was basically the smallest possible airframe that could be squeezed around the monster new engines that were in testing at the time. Grain of salt and all that, but with a Sabre engine they projected the top speed in excess of 450 mph which would have been and incredible achievement in 1941. The reasons I'd speculate why it was passed over was it had a relatively small fuel capacity and probably limited ground attack capacity, plus Hawker was pretty good at pitching new fighters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:and probably limited ground attack capacity Would this have really mattered? The Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon weren't initially considered for their ground-attack capabilities, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:After the Winter War, the Red Army came to a lot of conclusions some better than others. One of the conclusions was to expand the army, so junior commanders were again propelled into roles too big for their shoes and green cadets took their place. There was also a problem with experienced NCOs, leading to poor discipline among the common men in terms of maintaining equipment and keeping track of it. Also, nobody expected the war to come as soon as it did, so all the production goals were made with the assumption that there were a few years to fulfill them. Instead of polishing the T-34, every designer was busy with the T-34M, the KV-1 was similarly going to be replaced with the KV-3 in 1941 and then 4, or 5 (built, trialled and decided upon in 1942). As a result, nobody really practiced with these new tanks that would soon be obsolete anyway. Drivers didn't practice driving, infantry didn't practice following (turns out the T-34 in first gear is just a little too fast for infantry to comfortably follow, oops), etc. In addition to all those woes, the Red Army still hasn't solved their heavy tractor problem, limiting the mobility of strategic reserve and corps level artillery. A new design to solve these problem was due, you guessed it, by the end of 1941. Also, the mechanized corps were far too complicated for their level of leadership to operate. They were an all-arms equivalent to a US or German-style armored division but they didn't have the institutional knowledge to make good use of them, and eventually they transitioned to much, much simpler ad hoc units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Would this have really mattered? The Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon weren't initially considered for their ground-attack capabilities, as far as I know. The Hurricane and Spitfire were from different specifications. F.18/37 was intended to create a "heavy fighter" with one or more of the big new engines coupled with the 12x.303 armament. There was also a provision in the specification for "alternative weapons" which is assumed to mean cannon and the heavy rockets then under development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:
The Soviets had shot or imprisoned almost all their senior officers worth a drat right before attacking Finland, and their planning and preparation for the invasion was criminally negligent. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
How smart is the F18's twin tail design though? Seems like pretty soon everyone would be abandoning that feature in fighter planes, and not returning to the idea until the advent of twin engine fighter jets.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The Hurricane and Spitfire were from different specifications. F.18/37 was intended to create a "heavy fighter" with one or more of the big new engines coupled with the 12x.303 armament. There was also a provision in the specification for "alternative weapons" which is assumed to mean cannon and the heavy rockets then under development. Yeah but replacing the MG's with cannons wasn't that big a deal considering how the British fighter design progressed. Adding some rocket rails probably wouldn't have impeded it's performance more than other aircraft either. Fangz posted:How smart is the F18's twin tail design though? Seems like pretty soon everyone would be abandoning that feature in fighter planes, and not returning to the idea until the advent of twin engine fighter jets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_tail "Separating the control surfaces allows for additional rudder area or vertical surface without requiring a massive single tail. On multi-engine propeller designs twin fin and rudders operating in the propeller slipstream give greater rudder authority and improved control at low airspeeds, and when taxiing. A twin tail can also simplify hangar requirements, give dorsal gunners enhanced firing area, and in some cases reduce the aircraft's weight. It also affords a degree of redundancy—if one tail is damaged, the other may remain functional." It's not a bad idea, and was used in Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Also, the mechanized corps were far too complicated for their level of leadership to operate. They were an all-arms equivalent to a US or German-style armored division but they didn't have the institutional knowledge to make good use of them, and eventually they transitioned to much, much simpler ad hoc units. This is one of the decisions I was talking about that wasn't so correct. Our big clumsy tank units are ineffective? We need bigger, clumsier tank units! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Churchill wanted a massive D-Day type invasion of Europe through the Northern Adriatic in WW2, and was reportedly quite pissed nobody listened to him. I mean, just look at how short of a route to Berlin that is!* The gently caress was it with Churchill and terrible plans
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The gently caress was it with Churchill and terrible plans Whiskey?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:56
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Whiskey? I'm betting that and a combination of a few angry Boer rifle butts to the back of the head.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Also barbiturates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
oh my god someone please gif 1:30 - 1:33 of this video and make it loop. That's loving hysterical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
The more and more I encounter Churchill in my reading, the less and less do I understand why he's a lionized figure. His only substantial claim to greatness is not surrendering to the Germans when the British navy still controlled the Channel and made invasion an impossibility for the foreseeable future. That's not exactly a tough spot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Those planes designs are something Crimson Skies designers masturbate to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The more and more I encounter Churchill in my reading, the less and less do I understand why he's a lionized figure. His only substantial claim to greatness is not surrendering to the Germans when the British navy still controlled the Channel and made invasion an impossibility for the foreseeable future. That's not exactly a tough spot. You've got to remember that he was virtually alone in British politics before the war calling out Hitler as dangerous. So when it turned out that yeah, Hitler really was dangerous, old Winston looked like a genius. Then Chamberlain manages to blow his own foot off politically between "Peace in Our Time" and "Oh gently caress, France Just Surrendered." With your biggest ally down and out, you're standing alone against seemingly invincible military power that keeps doing poo poo no one thinks is possible, and lots of people are calling for a negotiated peace, Winston saying "gently caress that, we're still fighting" really was pretty courageous. Especially since no one was sure if the Royal Navy could actually keep the Channel clear in the face of attacks from the Luftwaffe. The Germans had already successfully made amphibious attacks against Norway, maybe they could do it to Britain too? Yeah, now we know that the Germans in fact could not do that. But the people of the time didn't. Winston himself wasn't sure. You don't talk about "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" if you're sure that is impossible. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Are there any good books on the battleship Bismarck? From what I understand, it was badly designed, but I'd like to know what exactly went wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Day 2 at Neuve Chapelle, and it's less a case of "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing", more a case of "both left and right hands are swinging wildly without reference to each other and often punching their own face". I sense the highly annoying phrase "learning curve" marching with grim determination towards future updates. Meanwhile, the French "brutal attack" in Champagne goes in as Herbert Sulzbach is relieved from the line, and the "Constantinople Expeditionary Force" gains a commanding general who is both fully aware that Lord Kitchener has just thrown him a massive hospital pass and who is completely psychologically unsuited to doing anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How smart is the F18's twin tail design though? Seems like pretty soon everyone would be abandoning that feature in fighter planes, and not returning to the idea until the advent of twin engine fighter jets. Not to knock a twin tail design in general, but the F.18's design in particular doesn't look like it has enough surface area to ensure directional stability at low air speeds with that big engine at full power, particularly since the fins appear to be either at the extreme edge of, or not in the prop wash at all. Not having prop wash over the rudder(s) gives you ground handling and takeoff/landing control issues, as well. I think if they had built it, the test pilot would have returned with some rather firm criticisms of the airplane. If he returned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Churchill was also pretty good at speechifying, self-promotion, rear end-covering, coming up with new justifications/explanations for things way after the fact, all the classic characteristics of a Hero Politician for the Ages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Chamale posted:Is this a real thing? I've read a couple fantasy and scifi books where modern humans are extremely good at deception and spotting deception because we're exposed to so much marketing, but I didn't think it was a credible idea. I've read some history books and I faintly remember some study was made about behaviour of the common people in the Sowjet Union about this kind of thing. Turns out when trying to make the New Communist Superhuman, the leaders of the Sowjet Union inadvertently just made the population better at hiding their real thoughts. And lying. Lots and lots of lying. This in turn lead to rampant corruption, until you got farcical events like empty trains traversing between Kasachstan and Russia, pretending to transport non-existent cotton. Or the total collapse of the agricultural sector. (In the end, the Sowjet Union depended on grain imports from the USA, since it literally couldn't feed it's own population anymore.) gohuskies posted:The Allies totally made ridiculous superweapons that now we don't even think of as superweapons the same way we think of early jet fighters and preposterous tanks. Setting aside the obvious example of the atomic bomb, which is almost certainly the craziest superweapon ever used, think about stuff like how they used radar. Radar fire controlled guns, ground-detecting radar fuses in artillery shells and so many other examples are all ridiculous superweapons by the standards of the day - the Allies just had the right ideas to make them work and the industrial capacity to back them up. The B-29 would be considered a superweapon as preposterous as the Maus if you described it to a 1943 German engineer, but the Allies still used them to destroy Japan. The thing about superweapons is, sometimes they work. So people in a war continue to try them out, just in case they get something good, like the atomic bomb for the Allies, or the V2 for the Axis. The V2 was a pretty scary weapon and I guess people in Britain were reliefed when the last launch bases were finally overrun. If it doesn't you get Habakuk on the Allies' side and rats and monsters on the Axis' side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:17
|
|
