|
Britain and France were worried about Germany because Germany was gobbling up states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria..... So the idea that the allies didn't care about Poland but were cynically just looking for an excuse to declare war out of 'paranoia' is just such a weird thing to say, even ignoring how much the two countries feared a new European war. Once they got in the war, presumably the allies wanted to win it. Why is it so incredible that failing to attack Germany is just one more of a series of strategic errors made in this period, and not some nefarious amoral decision to let the Germans win because ??? Also, the terms of the Anglo-Polish treaty covered only Germany, not the USSR. They were under no obligation to declare war, and the protocols of the Nazi-Soviet pact was secret - it was not necessarily obvious that the Soviets had invaded the Polish alongside the Nazis. The USSR's rhetoric, after all, was that it had not declared war, but was doing a humanitarian intervention. For their part, the Polish did not declare war on the USSR either. Edit: it seems to me that in the gay black Hitler universe where the Poles pressed the issue and caused a breakdown in western collaboration with the Soviets, the plight of the Polish people may well have been much, much worse. Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 25, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Xotl posted:This is going to be a big part of my dissertation, so I can cover some of it (just starting, so I don't really know anywhere near as much as I need to yet). I suspect a lot of the Western Betrayal narrative is predicated on the Soviet occupation that followed as well. In a gay black timeline where Germany is defeated but the SU isn't involved for some reason, and so Poland and Czechoslovakia are restored to status quo antebellum, I doubt anyone would have been half as upset. MrYenko posted:Related: imagine a war where the entirety of the BEF was annihilated somewhere south of Belgium, because even though they had made strong gains into Germany proper, they were harried and cut off as they retreated west towards the channel, instead of being evacuated at Dunkirk. The corollary to this of course is what a Franco-British offensive might have accomplished. If they had been able to push as far as the Rhine, that's a whole lot of Germany industry in allied hands. How Germany manages to ready itself for a western offensive after the operational losses in Poland is a pretty big question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Plus I, for one, think it very unlikely that the Nazis would have survived a major allied offensive capturing a significant part of Germany. It would have been seen as a sign that Hitler had finally gambled too high and needed to be removed. There were a number of opposition groups that were planning to act if the war turned against Germany, fully expecting that to happen with the allied offensive that didn't come.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
What everyone here is doing is making the mistake of assuming that hitler HAS to be stopped in 1940. With hindsight we recognize WW2 as this huge, awful thing so we're always questioning what could have been done early on to pinch that ugly little turd off. Look at it from the context of the times: England and France aren't anything like unified in the face of this war. America hasn't even cranked up lend-lease yet. Germany has been rearming like a motherfucker, while most of the rest of Europe has only reluctantly begun re-militarizing relatively recently because they are still broke as motherfuck from WW1. Ironically hyper-inflation wiping out German reparation payments put them in a better financial situation towards the mid 30s than a lot of the countries that were still trying to pay off the mountain of artillery shells they used in the Somme. Meanwhile you've got this nutter dictator who came to power in Germany and seems really loving keen on taking back the lands in the east that Germany lost at the end of WW1. This isn't even all that super-controversial. The areas that Hitler was seizing were all vaguely culturally German (or at least partially so) going back centuries, and most people figured he was trying to restore the 1914 borders that Europe had more or less lived as the rough boundaries of "here be (mostly) German speakers" since Napoleon. Hitler isn't the only guy who thought that the Danzig corridor was some pretty silly bullshit. Plus, he's just stick his poo poo in deep with the Poles, a country which managed to fend off the loving RUSSIANS throughout a good chunk of the 20s. Everyone who was really up on the status of military forces in the late 30s probably understood that the Poles were humped, but frankly they expected they would make a good show of it. Poland collapsing in a couple months (due in no small part to getting hosed up the rear end by Stalin) was a pretty loving huge shock to everyone else in 1939. Everyone figured they could let the Poles bleed the Germans dry for six months while they prepped a proper offensive and then walk in to relieve the pressure on the Poles with a spring offensive in 1940, sticking Germany with a really lovely two front war, one front of which was grinding through the goddamned industrial heartland of their nation. What's better, the scenario I just described, or rushing forward in an ill-timed and ill-concieved offensive with no prep, taking way more casualties than necessary, and probably committing political suicide at home as a result? Everyone was shocked at how fast Poland fell, including the Germans. By the time anyone realized how badly they'd hosed up it was essentially a one front war again. edit: Think of it more like Desert Storm. Why didn't the US invade Iraq as soon as we had a couple thousand guys on the ground in Saudi Arabia? Why build that huge coalition and do a massive build up? Why not just send in the marines attached to whatever local CVN group was in the neighborhood? Because we rightly figured that would lead to a loving bloodbath and it was probably a lot smarter to line everything up right if Saddam wasn't going to budge. Hitler dropping Poland that quick was like if Saddam had pushed right through Kuwait and taken the Saudis out in the first weeks, leaving everyone with their dicks in their hands and a bunch of dumb looks on their faces. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
My favorite bit about the 1940 western campaign will always be when there almost was an Anglo-French union. Just imagine this entity sticking together and trying to keep their joint colonial possessions together after WW2. Perhaps nukes could really have been used at Dien Bien Phu?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:My favorite bit about the 1940 western campaign will always be when there almost was an Anglo-French union. Just imagine this entity sticking together and trying to keep their joint colonial possessions together after WW2. Perhaps nukes could really have been used at Dien Bien Phu? Wasn't that a Churchill scheme that tipped the French prime minister into asking for an armistice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Wasn't that a Churchill scheme that tipped the French prime minister into asking for an armistice? I thought the reason they declined it was because they thought it would make the inferior in the union, kinda like wales, instead of a co-equal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Wasn't that a Churchill scheme that tipped the French prime minister into asking for an armistice? No. Reynaud was all for it and was surprised that the rest of his cabinet didn't see things the same way, and promptly resigned because he'd mistaken opposition to the union plan for opposition to continuing the war. Pétain took power that evening and the rest is cheese-eating surrender. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Japanese Explosive Ordnance: Army and Navy Ammunition Army Projectiles: Part 3 We start to get into the higher munitions, starting with the 12.7mm cartridge. It should be noted that the 12.7mm is similar to the .50 cal bullet, but the cartridges have different lengths, which is a very important detail as the diameter alone can be misleading. The Japanese Army only had one machine gun chambered in 12.7mm, the Ho-103 or Type 1, and was used in aircraft. The Ho-103 was sometimes referred to the Ho-104, and the only difference between the Ho-103 and Type 1 was that the former was used in a fixed position in the wings and the latter was used in a flexible position as a defensive gun on a bomber. 12.7x81mm Aircraft Cannon Ammunition Once again, it's a bit of a misnomer to call the 12.7mm round a cannon round, when examples like the MG131 13mm Machine Gun and the M2 Browning were not called cannons. In any case, the Ho-103 saw extensive use in the air force. 7 variants exist for it, although 3 differ only slightly. Ball: CuNi jacket and Lead core A.P.T.: Brass jacket with Steel core H.E.I. (fuzed Japanese): Brass jacket and P.E.T.N. incendiary and steel core H.E.I. (fuzed Italian): Brass jacket and P.E.T.N. incendiary and steel core H.E.I. (fuzed Fuzeless): Brass jacket and P.E.T.N. incendiary and steel core Tracer: CuNi jacket and Steel core A.P. (Italian): Gilding metal jacket and Lead tip - steel core As you might have suspected, the 12.7x81mm cartridge was copied from an Italian design. Colors and markings were: Ball: Red A.P.T.: Black or green and white H.E.I. fuzed: White H.E.I. fuzeless: Purple H.E.I. fuzed (Italian): Red, blue or green body Tracer: Green A.P. (Italian): Black tip on the nose Notes This ammunition was copied by the Japanese from the Italians. Of the two H.E.I. fuzed rounds, one is Italian and the other is a Japanese copy of it. The Japanese H.E.I. fuzed differs from the Italian round in that the fuze used is of two-piece construction instead of one. This ammunition is packed in 10-round cartons and is reloaded into metal link belts for use. An Italian 12.7x81mm cartridge  Type 97 and Type 98 20mm Ammunition For the purpose of clarification, ammunition will have the caliber and length of the case (IE: 20x142mm). 20mm rounds were used by 4 different Army guns, with the Type 97 round being used in the Type 97 antitank gun, the Ho-1 (flexible) cannon and the Ho-3 (fixed) cannon, while the Type 98 round was used in the dual-purpose Type 98 gun. The Type 97 was 124mm in case length, and the Type 98 was 142mm. Both cases were made of drawn brass and were rimless. The case is crimped to the projectile by three long crimps and sealed by a clear lacquer. Propellant: The propellant is graphited smokeless powder made in single perforated cylindrical grains approximately 1.5mm in diameter and 3mm in length. The weight of the propellant in the small case is 35.8 grams and, in the large case, 58.9 grams. 20mm (20x142mm) High-Explosive Tracer Projectile Overall Length: 20.8 cm Length of projectile: 81.3mm Weight of projectile: 128.8 grams Filling: Cyclonite, tracer composition Color and markings: Black body with yellow band just aft of bourrelet and white badn forward of rotating band. Fuzing: Type 93 small instantaneous fuze Used in: Type 98 antiaircraft/antitank gun Notes: This projectile is made of steel with two cavities separated by a septum. The round is characterized by a sharp bourrelet.  Next Time: 20mm Ammunition continued... This book is rad and great and everyone should have a copy of it...   
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Rev Kenneth Best writes home from Egypt with some complaints about the weather (of course) and some patronising remarks about the blokes, although he means well. A Scottish Territorial gets a nasty surprise while trying to keep himself clean in the trenches, the Friendly Feldwebel continues trying very hard not to die, and Sir Ian Hamilton sets up an interim headquarters in a former brothel. Allegedly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Speaking of tank evaluations, I don't think I've posted this particular bit of nerdery here (someone else might have though): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Allegedly former?  That shell hole story. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
So it killed the thread, apparently. This one's less macabre! (Slightly. Slightly less. If you discount the Ahem. 100 Years Ago The Friendly Feldwebel and his mates are trying to dodge the new menace of aeroplane bombardment, with limited success. The British government has increased the rates of separation allowance for dependents of soldiers. The Germans achieve some success in counter-mining, seriously denting the plans for the Battle of Woevre, and the Austro-Hungarians make a too little, too late diplomatic offer to keep Italy out of the war, as the Italian prime minister haggles with Russia over an Adriatic port city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Speaking of tank evaluations, I don't think I've posted this particular bit of nerdery here (someone else might have though): This is great, driving around in a tank when people aren't shooting at you looks like loads of fun! Is there something like this for more modern tanks? It seems like tanks since the 80's (especially western designs) have gotten so long and low that they would struggle with some of the obstacles in the video. But on the other hand they have massive power and much more robust and well-designed tracks, so I really don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This is great, driving around in a tank when people aren't shooting at you looks like loads of fun! It is, just don't be running for President when you do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
I know there is a report and a video from a Swedish evaluation of the terrain passability of the T-72, T-80 and MT-LB in the national archives, but since it's from the 90's it's still classified. I requested to have it declassified a few months ago but I don't know if they'll actually approve it (taking forever to get that sort of request approved is normal). It just might be approved though because "not our problem". There should be a report for the M1A1, Leopard 2 and Leclerc as well but I strongly doubt that one will be declassified at any time in the foreseeable future, especially since the Leo 2 is still in service here.
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:It is, just don't be running for President when you do so. What if you saved every last one of your birthday cakes? Also, I'd be surprised if they declassified the Swedish evaluation on the T-72, T-80 and MT-LB considering how Soviet WW2 explosive ordnance is still locked away, although maybe the two topics fall under different restrictions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Soviet WW2 explosive ordnance is still locked away Can you elaborate on this? I thought that explosives had like a 20-30 year shelf-life, tops. Does the modern Russian army just send its conscripts out to polish shells or something? I heard somewhere that the Russian army maintained Tsarist-era muzzle-loading cannon up until the 60s or so. True/false?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Can you elaborate on this? I thought that explosives had like a 20-30 year shelf-life, tops. Does the modern Russian army just send its conscripts out to polish shells or something? The only technical manual(s) that I know exist were written up by the US armed forces for disposal units. Some of the books in the series were scanned and eventually made their way to paper form, however, copies are few and far between. I tried searching their relevant databases and archives for a digital PDF but they are currently locked away. "The report is"U.S. GOVT. ONLY; DOD CONTROLLED"." Is the message I got when I asked about it. That being said, I did manage to track down an expensive copy of the book, so I guess I'll see if its volume 1 or 2 and how badly I got ripped off soon!  Edit: I guess what I'm saying is I didn't mean the actual explosives are locked away, just the evaluation/documentation on them
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:So Haha don't worry about it too much. Between Spring Break and Grey Hunter's WWI game, I think that a lot of the folks who post in this thread have a lot of competition for their time this week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Can you elaborate on this? I thought that explosives had like a 20-30 year shelf-life, tops. Does the modern Russian army just send its conscripts out to polish shells or something? The Ukrainian army is bringing 85 mm D-48 cannons back into service because they don't fall under the armistice restrictions. This stuff was built to sit in storage for decades in case of WWIII. As for muzzleloaders, I don't know, but I do know that there were cannonballs that were stored simply because some Tsarist clerk wrote "store indefinitely" on the form, and it's a huge pain in the rear end to get the bureaucracy to review anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Ukrainian army is bringing 85 mm D-48 cannons back into service because they don't fall under the armistice restrictions. This stuff was built to sit in storage for decades in case of WWIII. To be fair unlike explosives cannonballs dont go off 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
The Napoleonic and Crimean War reinactors of Eastern Europe aren't complaining. Assuming of course, they have the cannon balls to go after them.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
100 Years Ago We're stepping away from the trenches for today. In France, they're holding trials for a prototype landship. What's more, it even looks vaguely like a tank! Meanwhile, back in Blighty, a new Territorial Army recruit unwisely complains about doing guard duty, and tells us about the side benefits of one of the other duties in the town where he's been stationed. (It involves fish and chips.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago It's kind of endearing that they just drew gun ports onto the Frot-Laffly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Can you explain the rationale behind 18th century rifle combat where two armies would stand opposite of each other and fire at each other in volleys. Or is that just a creation of 20th century media?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
It's very a much a real thing, but it's not rifle combat, it's musket combat. Once rifles start becoming more common in the late 18th century, you can see a more modern light infantry doctrine start to appear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Carbolic Smokeball posted:Can you explain the rationale behind 18th century rifle combat where two armies would stand opposite of each other and fire at each other in volleys. Or is that just a creation of 20th century media? Muskets are not really accurate enough for small unit tactics. So volume won fights, and the blocks of dudes volley-firing was the best way to get that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Carbolic Smokeball posted:Can you explain the rationale behind 18th century rifle combat where two armies would stand opposite of each other and fire at each other in volleys. Or is that just a creation of 20th century media? For the reason why you fired in volleys: 1. Smoke, its impossible to see if everyone is firing at different times since 1 muskets smoke can block other peoples view so its better to fire all at once before you start to lose visibility 2. match locks and flint locks threw off sparks which could touch off other peoples loads however unlikely that may be (totally anecdotal theory crafting) 3. its a lot scarier when you get hit by a thunderclap of casualties and noise vs being picked away at slowly. (and people can easily rout if hit by a volley since morale is such a huge part of this type of combat) 4. soldiers may waste a lot of ammo by firing too soon or hold their shots too late so it was better to command them to fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Did anyone at any point go "oh my this is a waste of human life" or is it 200 years too soon for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Did anyone at any point go "oh my this is a waste of human life" or is it 200 years too soon for that? It was happening during the American Civil War at least. The growth of media giving people removed from the front lines a look at the suffering and casualties of war did a lot to bring those things into public awareness. Doubly so given how optimistic and cheery everyone was at the start, bringing picnic baskets to the first major battles of the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Did anyone at any point go "oh my this is a waste of human life" or is it 200 years too soon for that? It should be noted that by that point the vast majority of soldiers who died in war died of disease, too. Losing a thousand dudes in battle seems not that bad when you lose another ten thousand during the campaign from diarrhea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Did anyone at any point go "oh my this is a waste of human life" or is it 200 years too soon for that? I'm nowhere near an expert but from what I understand, muskets were laughably inaccurate and the smoke made vision basically impossible after a few volleys. It isn't analogous to a bunch of guys with M1 garands doing the same thing; your chances of surviving the first volley whilst in the front row were a lot higher than a trench assault in WW1 or something. Then after that initial contact you had to figure something else out because the smoke made further shooting not very effective. This is why cavalry could still be decisive and why bayonets existed - there was actually a great deal of tactical nuance and manoeuvre and things going on and not just blocks of men firing robotically at eachother.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSb8JE4eSj8 There's a fair amount of wind and even then a single volley produces a thick impenetrable cloud of smoke. A minute or two of firing would make it impossible to see anything. One of the reasons armies made the shift from fighting in lines of three to lines of two was the realisation that a huge proportion of casualties in the front line were caused by people in the third line shooting them in the back because they literally couldn't see that far ahead. A musket could actually be accurate out to around 200 yards if handled by a good man in perfect conditions, but conditions on the battlefield were never perfect. For one, you aren't actually aiming - you are levelling your musket and firing. Level it too high and your shot will pass right over the enemy's head - something likely to happen if you rush bringing the musket down from the vertical and flinch from the flash and recoil (incidentally combination of effects is what lead some officers to come to the otherwise counter-intuitive realisation that once the shooting started, the closer you got to the enemy the fewer casualties you'd actually take).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Didn't some manuals also recommend closing your eyes when you fire to avoid being blinded by the flash?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Haha don't worry about it too much. Between Spring Break and Grey Hunter's WWI game, I think that a lot of the folks who post in this thread have a lot of competition for their time this week. What game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What game? Over the Top http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705107 German thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3705109 Allied thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Did anyone at any point go "oh my this is a waste of human life" or is it 200 years too soon for that? Well Ashoka the Great converted to Buddhism after seeing how much of a meatgrinder the Kalinga war was and that was like 2300 years ago so yeah some people at some point did say "oh my this is a waste of human life" but it was well before gunpowder. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:A musket could actually be accurate out to around 200 yards if handled by a good man in perfect conditions, but conditions on the battlefield were never perfect. For one, you aren't actually aiming - you are levelling your musket and firing. Level it too high and your shot will pass right over the enemy's head - something likely to happen if you rush bringing the musket down from the vertical and flinch from the flash and recoil (incidentally combination of effects is what lead some officers to come to the otherwise counter-intuitive realisation that once the shooting started, the closer you got to the enemy the fewer casualties you'd actually take). Also, that kind of musket accuracy requires a perfectly fitting bullet. Black powder is notoriously dirty and after just a few shots, a barrel will become so clogged with solid waste products from combustion that a perfectly sized lead ball will no longer fit in the bore. To compensate for this (since you can't exactly meticulously clean your barrel after every shot on a battlefield), soldiers were issued undersized ammunition. This was easy to ram down even a dirty barrel, but the massive windage between the ball and the wall of the barrel ruined any attempt at accuracy. The Short Land Pattern musket (AKA the "Brown Bess") with military ammunition could only be expected to reliably hit a man-sized target at about 75 yards. Because of this notoriously poor accuracy with the intended ammo, muskets were often made with no sight except a simple front bead or blade like a modern shotgun, which prevents precision beyond the closest ranges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Didn't some manuals also recommend closing your eyes when you fire to avoid being blinded by the flash?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 02:13
|
|
