bewbies posted:Eh, you're quite right, that being said, I'd say the Soviet ideology was very nearly as fanatical and probably as damaging to the war effort as Nazism was. As for the US it is probably right to describe things a learning curve, but the curve for us was about three years behind everyone else and wasn't anywhere near actually efficient as compared to competitors until the war was more or less over. The US had so many resources and so much pre-existing industrial power that they were going to win the industrial battle almost no matter what they did. Well, pre-war Soviet ideology also caused massive industrial build-up, but wastefully and with the loss of a great deal of life. With the Soviets you have to say it cuts both ways for them. Also, the Soviet system actually did successfully produce, and always did, a highly educated intellectual elite that could create new weapons and technology - Germany, despite having an obvious base of great engineers, etc. lost a vast number of scientists to the allies as a result of its policies, large numbers of whom became key members of the Manhattan project (for example).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
There is a common misconception of Winter War that Finnish soldiers were unaffected by extreme cold as they slept in the warm bowels of dead reindeers or other nordic trickery. They did have better front accommodations, but then they also couldn't heat their shelters during daylight because of Soviet artillery and air attacks. Fortunately in the far north there were only a couple hours of daylight per day. Another misconception is that the weather was all the time -40ºC and in all parts of the front. In reality January's average temperature in Viipuri was -15,3ºC and in Sodankylä, Lapland -18ºC. The temperatures fluctuated a lot so one week of near zero temperatures could be followed by a sudden bout of -24ºC. Warmer doesn't mean better, though. When it briefly got warmer water would enter bunkers and tents and your boots and life would become miserable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Did any kamikaze desert? The conventional way, or hopping into their plane and In the latter case, how would you know? You launched twelve kamikazes and no one came back. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Agreed, I think my point is that everyone's were. Enh, questionable. There's no Allied equivalent to zimmerit, or the massive dedication of resources towards the holocaust, and the Germans never did anything as remarkable as the mass relocation of soviet production facilities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
Fangz posted:Enh, questionable. There's no Allied equivalent to zimmerit, or the massive dedication of resources towards the holocaust, and the Germans never did anything as remarkable as the mass relocation of soviet production facilities. For this, you can check out my post in the A/T Nazi thread, which touches on the idiocy of the industrial policy of the holocaust. You can't starve and murder people and treat them like factory workers at the same time - you can't work in a factory on an empty stomach, and such work that you do you will do badly on purpose to spite your captors.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Enh, questionable. There's no Allied equivalent to zimmerit, or the massive dedication of resources towards the holocaust, and the Germans never did anything as remarkable as the mass relocation of soviet production facilities. Not equating on moral grounds obviously, but I think the Soviet purges and the Japanese inter-service discord did at least as much to undermine their respective war efforts as did the Holocaust. As for the comparison to Soviet industrial accomplishments, let's not lose sight of the fact the Germans managed to produce around 40,000 aircraft and 20,000 tanks (numbers comparable to the Soviets) during year 1944, which was done while their industrial base was under more or less constant attack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
I think some decisive victories served to vastly accelerate the war though; losing some battles might have vastly delayed WWII.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Not equating on moral grounds obviously, but I think the Soviet purges and the Japanese inter-service discord did at least as much to undermine their respective war efforts as did the Holocaust. As for the comparison to Soviet industrial accomplishments, let's not lose sight of the fact the Germans managed to produce around 40,000 aircraft and 20,000 tanks (numbers comparable to the Soviets) during year 1944, which was done while their industrial base was under more or less constant attack. Adam Tooze addresses German production versus Allied bombing in The Wages of Destruction and points out that a lot of the German "production miracles" like the 1944 numbers were because Allied bombers were either being wasted on futile raids on Berlin or were diverted for pre-Overlord strikes on the French transportation network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Not equating on moral grounds obviously, but I think the Soviet purges and the Japanese inter-service discord did at least as much to undermine their respective war efforts as did the Holocaust. As for the comparison to Soviet industrial accomplishments, let's not lose sight of the fact the Germans managed to produce around 40,000 aircraft and 20,000 tanks (numbers comparable to the Soviets) during year 1944, which was done while their industrial base was under more or less constant attack. Yes but the Soviet purges happened before the war, when the Soviets were very sure that WWII wasn't going to happen for a while. It takes an altogether different sort of idiocy to do that sort of thing while a war was taking place and you are currently losing. EDIT: Looking at 1944 also missed the point that Germany took until then to commit to full war production. In the critical 1941-1942 phase the soviets were ramping up production of AFVs from 2800 to over 12000, all while moving all their factories. Meanwhile the Germans chugged along, increasing production from 3623 to only 5530. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Soviet purges continued through WW2, just the targets would vary - eg. Chechens, Poles and others deemed sympathetic to enemy would be systematically rounded up. I also can't imagine the internment of Japanese Americans in mainland USA did anything positive to US economy. At least it wasn't tried in Hawaii or with German Americans. Also I was quite surprised to learn that Canada continued some of the restrictions on Canadian Japanese until 1949. Sheesh! None of these quite approach the German dedication to getting rid of the Jews (and gypsies and gays and commies and...) but it can't be said that other major powers were acting all logically and without prejudice. UK even held a witch trial in 1944 because authorities thought the medium was a spy...  
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:hang on a minute I think I've just worked out why joining that insane Grey Hunter LP was so appealing...moving swiftly on... Speaking of which, are you finding that your historical research on WWI is providing any useful insights into Grey Hunter's LP, or vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:My favourite misconception uniform wise, the coat/cloak/greatcoat/cape of <insert solder here> was dyed red to hide the colour of them bleeding. Bring me my brown pants...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Speaking of which, are you finding that your historical research on WWI is providing any useful insights into Grey Hunter's LP, or vice versa? The French haven't retreated yet, so I can only assume Trin's research leads him to believe his side still has a chance. I guess there are some things for which book - learning just can't prepare you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Speaking of which, are you finding that your historical research on WWI is providing any useful insights into Grey Hunter's LP, or vice versa? I can't quite believe I'm about to type this with even the tiniest soupcon of sincerity, but here goes: No comment, on the grounds of operational security. Remind me when the battle's over, if you're still interested. (Also, I don't do research, I just read other people's books and then attempt to synthesise a new narrative out of the best bits. If Soylent Green is people, then my blog is historians.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Also, I don't do research, I just read other people's books I don't mean to alarm you homie but this is research
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I assume Theodore Roosevelt vs Lawrence of Arabia was an extended contest witty rejoinders followed by a spirited boxing match I wish. That episode had one of their stupidest decisions (in a show built on stupid decisions) when it came to comparing machine guns: Teddy Roosevelt's Gatling gun vs. Lawrence's Vickers. The Gatling gun had a lower rate of fire and I believe lower accuracy. The Vickers was superior in virtually every manner, but suffered a loss of time due to a single malfunction (which I believe was operator error). The "experts" promptly gave victory to the Gatling gun for -- I am not loving with you -- the Vickers being unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I don't mean to alarm you homie but this is research And it's more research than is put into 90% of history related bestsellers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
Nenonen posted:And it's more research than is put into 90% of history related bestsellers. Yeah, have you tried 'using your imagination really hard'?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes but the Soviet purges happened before the war, when the Soviets were very sure that WWII wasn't going to happen for a while. It takes an altogether different sort of idiocy to do that sort of thing while a war was taking place and you are currently losing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ (26:20 mark if it doesn't work) is a great go-to for the whole production differences. Really does a good job of showing the issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Cliometrics 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I wish. That episode had one of their stupidest decisions (in a show built on stupid decisions) when it came to comparing machine guns: Teddy Roosevelt's Gatling gun vs. Lawrence's Vickers. I skipped ahead in the thread, but something tells me this is about deadliest warrior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Gatling gun had a lower rate of fire and I believe lower accuracy. The Vickers was superior in virtually every manner, but suffered a loss of time due to a single malfunction (which I believe was operator error). The "experts" promptly gave victory to the Gatling gun for -- I am not loving with you -- the Vickers being unreliable. Reading this just makes me so angry. I shouldn't feel so pissed but fuuuuuuuuuuuck!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Reading this just makes me so angry. I shouldn't feel so pissed but fuuuuuuuuuuuck! Literally only watch it for the cool gore when they gently caress up ballistic gel heads. They make major mistakes in every episode from start to finish, which unfortunately get repeated as a source by people with little to no knowledge on the subject. Just reading the Wikipedia articles giving synopses of the episodes is enough to make you angry. The first season also pissed off ninja fans, because it depicted ninjas as wearing the infamous black pajamas and the actor reenactment required the ninja to loudly announce his impending assassination to let the Spartan deflect it. Edit: I remembered another one. People took to the internet after the IRA vs. Taliban episode ("tastefulness" was not in their vocabulary) to point out how the mud test between the AR-15 and AK-47 was obviously faked to give a pro-AK result. They also gave the Taliban an AK bayonet for their close range option while the IRA just got a slingshot. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:
I play a series of boardgames about various insurgencies which occasionally gives rise to odd conversations about how much better the Vietcong once they get the ability to conduct sharia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
^^^ I will never get bored of playing Civilization and e.g. making the Protestant Zulus or the Shinto French (complete with the Oracle of Paris, the Brandenberg Gate of Orleans, and the Eiffel Tower of Perpignan) ^^^Disinterested posted:Yeah, have you tried 'using your imagination really hard'? You've seen those terrible, terrible maps, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:For this, you can check out my post in the A/T Nazi thread, which touches on the idiocy of the industrial policy of the holocaust. You can't starve and murder people and treat them like factory workers at the same time - you can't work in a factory on an empty stomach, and such work that you do you will do badly on purpose to spite your captors. I have done some research on the rations of soviet POWs a while ago. It is especially instructive as they constituted such a large part of the workforce later on and originally were destined to be exterminated by starvation until failure of Operation Taifun meant different economic requirements. It was expected that taking Moscow would enable them to disband a very large number of divisions and put the men back into the factories. So that failing, they had to use POWs. Streit calculates that about 57,8% of all Soviet POWs (100% = 5.734.528) died. 1941 to mid 1942 being especially deadly. Main reason being starvation, which was already implicated in the economical plans for the Ostgebiete in early 1941 (another reason being that there weren't any big Kessels later on, but it was expected that they could capture enough soviets anytime they needed). Compare that to mortality rates of e.g. french (1,58%), british (1,15%) and american (0,3%) POWs. German POWs in the hands of the SU had a mortality rate of 35,1-37,4% from 1941-1945. With the political and economical requirements changed, by Oct. 1942 Speer and the RMBuM were pushing for better rations on behalf of the entrepreneurs, who complained that the workers couldn't do their jobs while starving. The OKW/Kgf. lobbied for that in Sept. 1942. There was a meeting on the 29th with various guys from the Parteikanzlei, Reichskanzlei, VPJl and GBA, etc. where these suggestions were rejected. Rations were raised however, along with the rations of the civilian population in the Reichsgebiet. For the POWs this had little effect, as they only received foodstuffs of generally low nutritional value (I could scan such lists if you understand German). These rations were given until mid 1944. They were raised to the levels of the german civilian population by 27. Oct. 1944 by the REM, but that decision was soon undermined by various efforts to couple issue to work performance (if that sounds familiar, that was already in the Grüne Mappe in 1941 and meant to kill off the useless elements of the civilian population). Not meeting the requirements means that you don't get the full ration, if you don't get the full ration, very soon you will be unable to meet the requirements even if you want. Rations were calculated so tightly, that even under ideal circumstances, with all goods being available, you'd barely survive light labour. Etc., etc., so there's rations on paper and what really lands in your stomach, rationality and ideological intervention (also within the enterprises) and the companies eager to cut corners whereever possible. Good luck if you end up in a mine. Getting issued to a farm on the other hand most likely means survival. The Reichsernährungsministerium is worth reading up on. It's so unspectacular. The people at the desks there deliver the numbers that seem to make it necessary to kill an awful lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I just finished reading a fairly interesting book if you're interested in naval history and ship design, The World's Worst Warships by Antony Preston. The book is pretty short and has only a brief section on each ship, but I found it interesting in that most of the entries weren't so much poorly designed examples of normal ship patterns but experiments in technology or tactics that ended up not panning out, or were grossly misused from their intended purpose. Preston takes into account six main factors in ship design and claims (I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge how accurate this book is) that each example in the book was a critical failure in at least two: cost, perceived threats to the navy, the nation's industrial capacity, design competence, the operating environment of the ship, and incorrect post-battle analysis. List of ships featured in the book: American Civil War monitors (United States) Turret Ship HMS Captain (Britain) Vitse-Admiral Popov and Novgorod Coast Defense Ships (Russia) Armored rams HMS Polyphemus and USS Katahdin (Britain and United States) Armored cruiser Rurik (Russia) Dynamite cruiser USS Vesuvius (United States) Powerful class protected cruisers (Britain) Borodino class battleships (Russia) Destroyer HMS Swift (Britain) Viribus Unitis class dreadnoughts (Austria-Hungary) Normandie class dreadnoughts (France) AA class fleet submarines (United States) 'Flush-decker' destroyers (United States) K class submarines (Britain) HMS Courageous, Glorious, and Furious, light battlecruisers (Britain) Fast battleship HMS Hood (Britain) Omaha class scout cruisers (United States) HMSwS Gotland hybrid cruiser (Sweden) Duquesne class heavy cruisers (France) Deutschland class 'pocket battleships' (Germany) Condottieri class light cruisers (Italy) IJNS Ryujo aircraft carrier (Japan) Mogami class cruisers (Japan) Yamato class super battleships (Japan) Bismarck class battleships (Germany) Implacable class fleet aircraft carriers (Britain) Hydrogen-peroxide submarines (Various) Alpha class nuclear attack submarines (Russia) Type 21 anti-submarine frigates (Britain) La Combattante-type fast attack craft (France)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Why were the Viribus Unitis class dreadnoughts failures? I would assume something with their crappy underwater armor protection? For WW1, 3 guns each in 4 triple center-line turrets seem like a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Why were the Viribus Unitis class dreadnoughts failures? I would assume something with their crappy underwater armor protection? For WW1, 3 guns each in 4 triple center-line turrets seem like a great idea. Paraphrasing this book's analysis: The Viribus Unitis was designed to counter the Italian dreadnought Dante Alighieri, believing Italy to be AH's most significant naval adversary. However, there were three main issues with the Viribus Unitis. 1. Construction. Due to the way the Austro-Hungarian Navy was organized and run, the Hungarian side had veto power over any major expenditure that didn't involve the Hungarians. Four ships of the Viribus Unitis class were authorized, and Hungary demanded that one be built in a Hungarian shipyard. The only Hungarian shipyard of note wasn't large enough to build anything like the VU, and so the size and cost of the VU were restricted by the need to expand the Hungarian shipyard and what it would be capable of. The result was a rather unhappy compromise, and the Hungarian shipyard crew had no experience with building ships this large. There is evidence that this Hungarian-built ship, the Szent Istvan, was not constructed as solidly as the three Austrians. This is also the ship that the Italians torpedoed and sank. 2. Poor stability. The VUs were not very seaworthy and had a tendency to heel badly in rough seas or, as experience proved, when damaged underwater. This design flaw is mostly blamed on the cost restrictions imposed by point 1. 3. Poor underwater protection. The VU series was designed with anti-torpedo armored cells on the hull, a technique the French also tried with no notable results, but the VU's primary architect, Siegfried Popper, declined to give the innovation any serious testing. Making matters worse, the only anti-torpedo bulkheads on the VUs were a single centerline bulkhead on each deck and no longitudinal bulkheads at all. This both made the ships very vulnerable to flooding from underwater attacks and exacerbated the stability problems due to the lengthwise bulkhead. Problems 2 and 3, to a great extent caused by problem 1, made the VU extremely vulnerable to underwater attack, and it was precisely that form of attack that sank two of the four VUs commissioned. While the ships had excellent armament for the time, there is also evidence that all four ships suffered from mechanical reliability issues and faulty armor design in general. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
What's his reasoning on the Monitor class? Those things kind of owned rivers and coastlines. My limited understanding is that they did a pretty good job within those parameters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What's his reasoning on the Monitor class? Those things kind of owned rivers and coastlines. My limited understanding is that they did a pretty good job within those parameters. I'm pretty sure it's because they were useless/dangerous in other waters. It's a weird book because it's as much intended to give examples of what professional naval designers see as flaws and give perspective on flaws that don't show up on comparing hard numbers as it is to actually be what the title suggests. I'd be willing to bet that it got written during some fighting between buying ships designed for foreign customers or letting the professionals do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What's his reasoning on the Monitor class? Those things kind of owned rivers and coastlines. My limited understanding is that they did a pretty good job within those parameters. Short version since I'm away from my back work desk: the problem was not the Monitors' (there were a few distinct classes) usefulness in rivers and very shallow coastal waters. The problem was that the US Navy kept trying to use them for blue water work, which the Monitors were never designed for and suffered badly when used that way. Edit: It was written in 2002, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I can't quite believe I'm about to type this with even the tiniest soupcon of sincerity, but here goes: No comment, on the grounds of operational security. Remind me when the battle's over, if you're still interested. Hahaha, that's fair. Well I can certainly understand wanting to keep things on the hush-hush. Without wanting to give anything away, know that there are plenty of MilHist Goons who are watching the LP with bated breath and enjoying watching everyone play. The spectator thread has more than 18,000 views, with plenty of discussion going on. Keep up the good work!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
A book on naval failures that doesn't mention the Vasa?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
rossmum posted:I found it interesting that the BAOR exercises seem to have consistently produced fatalities because that's one of the main lines of "lol the Soviet Army was garbage" criticism I've seen in reference to the ZAPAD exercises. Honestly, if you took out the identifying names from TheFluff's excerpts, I would have read quite a bit before realizing that he wasn't talking about the Red Army 1938-1940.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Tomn posted:A book on naval failures that doesn't mention the Vasa? That the one that just flipped over and sank while being launched, while the king watched? E: guess the king was in Poland at the time and it was instead a bunch of ambassadors and local onlookers that saw it get blown over less than a mile into its maiden voyage. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That the one that just flipped over and sank while being launched, while the king watched? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Finnish coastal defense ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen weren't necessarily bad ships but still a waste of a restricted defense budget. The newly established Finnish navy started with obsolete Tsarist equipment in the 1920s. After torpedo boat S2 capsized in a storm and took 53 sailors down with her, a popular movement demanded for modernizing the navy. This involved getting new torpedo boats and submarines (which were prototypes for later German U-boat designs) and most of all the two coastal defense ships or panssarilaiva's. A fleet gotta have a proper flagship, after all! Unfortunately Finland was a really poor nation and the two capital ships were a tragic misinvestment. Ilmarinen was lost to a mine in 1941 taking 271 sailors into the depths. Neither ship ever did anything particularly useful, meanwhile ground forces were short on just about everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Finnish coastal defense ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen weren't necessarily bad ships but still a waste of a restricted defense budget. The newly established Finnish navy started with obsolete Tsarist equipment in the 1920s. After torpedo boat S2 capsized in a storm and took 53 sailors down with her, a popular movement demanded for modernizing the navy. This involved getting new torpedo boats and submarines (which were prototypes for later German U-boat designs) and most of all the two coastal defense ships or panssarilaiva's. A fleet gotta have a proper flagship, after all! Unfortunately Finland was a really poor nation and the two capital ships were a tragic misinvestment. Ilmarinen was lost to a mine in 1941 taking 271 sailors into the depths. Neither ship ever did anything particularly useful, meanwhile ground forces were short on just about everything. You'd love the two Russian coastal defense ships in the book. As it turns out, there's a reason why circular hulls with six propellers never caught on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Finnish coastal defense ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen weren't necessarily bad ships but still a waste of a restricted defense budget. The newly established Finnish navy started with obsolete Tsarist equipment in the 1920s. After torpedo boat S2 capsized in a storm and took 53 sailors down with her, a popular movement demanded for modernizing the navy. This involved getting new torpedo boats and submarines (which were prototypes for later German U-boat designs) and most of all the two coastal defense ships or panssarilaiva's. A fleet gotta have a proper flagship, after all! Unfortunately Finland was a really poor nation and the two capital ships were a tragic misinvestment. Ilmarinen was lost to a mine in 1941 taking 271 sailors into the depths. Neither ship ever did anything particularly useful, meanwhile ground forces were short on just about everything. But if they hadn't spent a bunch of money building capital ships to look like a real navy, how would they get Germany-senpai to notice them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
