|
Throatwarbler posted:I think a JDAM is slow enough that a CIWS can probably take them out? Supposing they could elevate the gun to such an angle. Considering that the CIWS is meant to identify and shoot down extremely fast missiles as they approach the ship, I think it would end up noticing the plane before the JDAM was even dropped.
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You're mixing up the 57 mm ZiS-2 and 45 mm 53-K and M-42 guns. The ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 are also completely different animals: the ZiS-3 is a general purpose divisional gun, while the ZiS-2 is a dedicated anti-tank gun. Whoops! The general point still stands, though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
What was the last amphibious landing that the Japanese did in WW2? Opposed (like Wake) and unopposed (like Malaya/Philippines) if those are different. For that matter, I'm not exactly sure if the Malaya and Philippines landings were opposed. Were they?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What was the last amphibious landing that the Japanese did in WW2? Opposed (like Wake) and unopposed (like Malaya/Philippines) if those are different. Latest proper one I can think off the top of my head is maybe New Guinea, and I know nothing about it. Plan Z fucked around with this message at 10:17 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Splode posted:To clarify, I think the smell of burnt gun powder is nice, it's the residue left all over the inside of ~our device~ that I have to clean out with a Qtip that stinks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Are you sure? I always thought it was vague but likely to be the Seven Years' War, on account of the Hanoverian succession. This is Shirley Collins' version, btw. Not sure at all, but wikipedia said so  Also, her version is very pretty, but alludes no more to the nature of the conflict that the Dubliners' or Pentangles' version.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
well it's gotta be post 17th century because the entire narrative is that the girlfriend can't come with this is about one of the anglo-dutch wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRB4HTXMJR0
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
I've skipped the last +500 posts. Did I miss anything notable?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I've skipped the last +500 posts. Did I miss anything notable? Some people have said the Luftwaffe was bad. Others, that it was in fact good.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I've skipped the last +500 posts. Did I miss anything notable? Fully armored modern superbattleships are worth building to cure impotence in naval planners.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:well it's gotta be post 17th century because the entire narrative is that the girlfriend can't come with So the war of Spanish succession? Or do you have another option?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Tias posted:Also, her version is very pretty, but alludes no more to the nature of the conflict that the Dubliners' or Pentangles' version. That's my point, the words are vague enough that pinning it down is pretty much guesswork, beyond its being pre-Napoleonic. So likely 18th century, but beyond that... HEY GAL posted:well it's gotta be post 17th century because the entire narrative is that the girlfriend can't come with Thanks, I've only heard Steeleye Span's version before.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Snorkeling devices are a standard feature on many modern MBT's, actually. I have a question about these sorts of snorkels. How is the engine getting air on the Leo 2? does it have an intake in the cabin? Is the force of its exhaust gasses greater than the water pressure?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I have a question about these sorts of snorkels. How is the engine getting air on the Leo 2? does it have an intake in the cabin? Is the force of its exhaust gasses greater than the water pressure? The snorkel is above the water and feeds air to the Leo's diesel. I believe the fighting compartment is waterproof and theres a separate tube for the crew.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The snorkel is above the water and feeds air to the Leo's diesel. I believe the fighting compartment is waterproof and theres a separate tube for the crew. If there's a separate snorkel to the 'conning tower' then I'm not seeing it. My German is too awful to tell more than that they explain some technical aspects in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26rJiOnKLk
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
They're just driving across rivers etc with the things not fording the English Channel. Whatever air is available in the fighting compartment for the crew when they go in is probably enough. It takes a lot longer to suffocate people than an engine.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:If there's a separate snorkel to the 'conning tower' then I'm not seeing it. My German is too awful to tell more than that they explain some technical aspects in this video. According to the video the process of readying the tank for fording involves closing the external air intake and opening an intake on the bulkhead between crew and engine compartment. So the engine sucks in air via the crew compartment and the conning tower. It looks like exhaust just bubbles out as normal. So its a bit drafty presumably for the tank commander and he shouldn't be too chunky, but the crew should be getting plenty of fresh air. Is that water spraying out of the bore evacuator at 1:34?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
So Germany for the record was never actually "close" to winning WWII right? Even at their high water marks (Battle of Britain or Operation Typhoon) they had no means of following through right? I'm having a boring internet argument and I want to make sure my understanding about the logistics is correct.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:You might want to check out some of Ernie Pyle's reports, most of them are online I think. I think my favorite part of those excerpts is when the marines take the Japanese soldiers prisoner. One of them takes a rifle as a trophy and is offered first $100 for it and turns it down, then an even greater offer of four quarts of whiskey is made and also turned down, and then eight quarts of whiskey.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So Germany for the record was never actually "close" to winning WWII right? Even at their high water marks (Battle of Britain or Operation Typhoon) they had no means of following through right? I'm having a boring internet argument and I want to make sure my understanding about the logistics is correct. Yeah, pretty much. Looking at the two big places they "almost won", the Battle of Britain and the attempt at Moscow, neither of them end with the nazis winning because they lack any means to really follow through. They'd have unquestionably been bad for both sides, but they can't effect Seelowe, and if they managed to attack Moscow then they just get Staligrad earlier. "Winning" anywhere else is a fantasy; even if Wach Am Rhine or rommel's dash to the suez succeeds beyond the wildest dreams of the relevant participants, they still get smashed, it just adds a few months to things. And thinking about it there still needs to be a scenario where Japan never attacks the USA to force them into the war, as well, regardless of anything else that happens.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:and then eight quarts of whiskey. Which, be it noted, is only turned down conclusively after the guy making the offer admitted that he had no idea how or where to get eight quarts of whiskey. It's a very human moment.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So Germany for the record was never actually "close" to winning WWII right? Even at their high water marks (Battle of Britain or Operation Typhoon) they had no means of following through right? I'm having a boring internet argument and I want to make sure my understanding about the logistics is correct. Only way they win is if you go into gay black hitler territory and give the nazis something like having assassinated churchill and broken the british publics will to fight or some such fantasy. Basically the Nazis needed the Brits to back out of the war and settle before the battle of Britain, and the US needs to not get involved. Those 2 things happen, and the Nazis pack winter coats and do not try and blitzkrieg into Moscow, and yeah they can win the war as the USSR was not invulnerable, and the Nazis would have a significant air advantage. But the only way those things happen is crazy alt history poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So Germany for the record was never actually "close" to winning WWII right? Even at their high water marks (Battle of Britain or Operation Typhoon) they had no means of following through right? I'm having a boring internet argument and I want to make sure my understanding about the logistics is correct. Right. And it's kind of amazing when you consider that Hitler never even intended to start a war with Britain, instead he thought that the guarantee to Poland was mere bluff and bluster. Then he thought that the Anglos would get reasonable if Norway and France fell. And so on. One bad decision followed another, crowned by a declaration of war on United States while German army was getting bogged down in front of Moscow.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:crowned by a declaration of war on United States while German army was getting bogged down in front of Moscow. You know, come to think of it, do we have any records that might provide some insight on the strategic thinking behind that? Was it purely a "Let's support our allies" moment? Was there any kind of end-game or plan as to how to actually force the Americans to the peace table? Were they hoping the Japanese would thrash the Americans at sea soundly and then invade Russia from Siberia as thanks for the support or something?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Note that if Germany can settle a peace with Britain, the blockade lifts and it gets access to the world markets again. That's a pretty massive deal with regards to how oil and rare minerals became a massive resource pinch in the later years of the war.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Tomn posted:You know, come to think of it, do we have any records that might provide some insight on the strategic thinking behind that? Was it purely a "Let's support our allies" moment? Was there any kind of end-game or plan as to how to actually force the Americans to the peace table? Were they hoping the Japanese would thrash the Americans at sea soundly and then invade Russia from Siberia as thanks for the support or something? america, like the ussr, is run by the jewish conspiracy. it's only being proactive. i think saul friedlaender said that
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Could a for whatever reason so inclined German leadership have conceivably sort of peaced out after the fall of France? Like switch to a defensive stance vs. the UK, start setting up civilian puppet postwar governments in some of the conquered territories, ask the US to mediate a peace? The US aren't as inofficially committed to the Battle of the Atlantic at this point yet (?) so maybe there's a chance to keep them neutral (?), at which point the Commonwealth is facing a long and dubiously practical (?) slog alone vs. the Axis, and the Soviet Union afaik wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to take on the Germans alone (?). Is the main German problem at that point the economics of food etc., ie the conquest train has to keep rolling to continue having stolen stuff to redistribute, or is the main problem ideology, ie quest for Lebensraum / achieving hegemony in Europe / Platz an der Sonne / blockade-proof autarky? Is this a false dichotomy? Sussing out a mutually acceptable peace with France presumably is another challenge? I guess the Italians haven't achieved much of their war aims yet at this point (?) but what's a vittoria mutilata more or less. Sorry about all the dubious assumptions, I'm obviously not a historian. e: whoops, took a bit too long typing this out aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
You can't sit out of a war with the USSR if you want to beat them. In the summer of 1941, the Red Army is rapidly modernizing. By the summer of 1942, it would have been a completely different beast with a line of shiny new fortifications along the new border.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can't sit out of a war with the USSR if you want to beat them. In the summer of 1941, the Red Army is rapidly modernizing. By the summer of 1942, it would have been a completely different beast with a line of shiny new fortifications along the new border. Right, and even during the weird faux peace brought on by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact it's not like the Nazis were cool with the USSR. The Nazis were not subtle about their desire to eliminate communism (or Bolshevism or whatever they called it) and specifically destroy the USSR, they were screaming it from the proverbial rooftops from the very beginning. To paraphrase what is often repeated in this thread: there are often counterfactuals that would allow the Nazis to perform better, but they all rely on them not being Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
This has to be at least the 7th or 8th iteration of "Could the Nazis have won the war?"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Maybe if thy had better logistics and a different way to transport heavy munitions, something strong, bearlike dare I say...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Tomn posted:You know, come to think of it, do we have any records that might provide some insight on the strategic thinking behind that? Was it purely a "Let's support our allies" moment? Was there any kind of end-game or plan as to how to actually force the Americans to the peace table? Were they hoping the Japanese would thrash the Americans at sea soundly and then invade Russia from Siberia as thanks for the support or something? If the Germans didn't do it, the Americans wouldn't have taken much longer. By mid-1941 there were USN ships shooting at U-boats, which were actively sinking American ships. The American public wanted to declare war. Before then, Lend-Lease aid was being sent to Britain and the USSR, Iceland had been taken over to be used as an airbase, and Destroyers for Bases had been signed. The Roosevelt administration had been working to bring America to war since 1939 at least. Declaring war on America is a better propaganda move than letting America declare war on you. It probably also felt better. The reasons don't really matter though, because it was a forgone conclusion. Hitler saw an opportunity to poo poo-talk, and was probably feeling confident about toppling the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Right, and even during the weird faux peace brought on by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact it's not like the Nazis were cool with the USSR. The Nazis were not subtle about their desire to eliminate communism (or Bolshevism or whatever they called it) and specifically destroy the USSR, they were screaming it from the proverbial rooftops from the very beginning. To paraphrase what is often repeated in this thread: there are often counterfactuals that would allow the Nazis to perform better, but they all rely on them not being Nazis. One of the most amusing little facts I heard about the deception leading up to the German attack on the USSR was the fact that part of the intelligence service's argument that the Germans weren't going to attack was that the German preparations looked like the scramblings of a bunch of idiots who forgot winter happens, which meant they had to be bluster, despite the rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Could a for whatever reason so inclined German leadership have conceivably sort of peaced out after the fall of France? Like switch to a defensive stance vs. the UK, start setting up civilian puppet postwar governments in some of the conquered territories, ask the US to mediate a peace? The US aren't as inofficially committed to the Battle of the Atlantic at this point yet (?) so maybe there's a chance to keep them neutral (?), at which point the Commonwealth is facing a long and dubiously practical (?) slog alone vs. the Axis, and the Soviet Union afaik wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to take on the Germans alone (?). The problem with this is that absolutely no one trusted Hitler after he claimed in Munich that he had no further territorial demands and then occupied Czechoslovakia anyway. And then demanded Danzig a few months later. And then invaded like half a dozen neutral countries. Nazi Germany by early 1940 had "constant threat to world peace" written all over it and I don't see Britain accepting a peace, especially not with Churchill at the helm. Any peace would only make the eventual continuation war all the harder.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Could a for whatever reason so inclined German leadership have conceivably sort of peaced out after the fall of France? Like switch to a defensive stance vs. the UK, start setting up civilian puppet postwar governments in some of the conquered territories, ask the US to mediate a peace? The US aren't as inofficially committed to the Battle of the Atlantic at this point yet (?) so maybe there's a chance to keep them neutral (?), at which point the Commonwealth is facing a long and dubiously practical (?) slog alone vs. the Axis, and the Soviet Union afaik wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to take on the Germans alone (?). The main German problem, prior to the invasion of the USSR, was that Britain was absolutely not inclined to come to a negotiated peace with Germany, and there was no particular reason to assume that would change over time. The British blockade of Germany was much more complete than German attempts to disrupt British shipping, and once it became clear that Germany was unable or unwilling to invade England, German military and diplomatic advantages would inevitably decline over time. The British simply had no pressing reason to leave the war, and a great many reasons to stay in it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Any scenario where Germany wins has to be predicated on one thing: No invasion of Russia. If russia isn't invaded then the Germans just waiting out the British becomes a lot more of an option. No Russian front means N. Africa gets showered with resources. Egypt falling and cutting the Canal is a pretty big possibility. German soldiers in the oil fields of Iraq isn't impossible. More importantly you don't have 80% of the Wehrmacht dying on the Soviet Steppe when it comes time to talk about an invasion of France. I'm not quite sure I buy the idea that Stalin would have invaded if Hitler didn't. The Nazi worldview was strongly predicated on needing to expand to the east and on the evils of Communism. The Soviets didn't care for the Nazis, but they didn't have settling peasants on the banks of the Elbe and destroying German fascism as core components of their justification for existing. If you haven no Russian front you're looking at, best case, an invasion scenario that promptly turns into another bout of WW1's west front. Imagine Normandy if Army Group North had been available to oppose it. WW1 Britain came perilously close to breaking due to the human toll the war took, and it pretty well hosed British domestic politics for a decade. A 1940s version of the Somme with no Russian juggernaut to count on for relief could do a lot to lose Churchill an election and push for a settlement. That said, no invasion of Russia is the archetypal "Gay Black Hitler" scenario. At that point we might as well be discussing how the 40s would have gone if Hitler was a socialist. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
If you guys want I could post his argument, if you think it's worth reading, here's a taste:quote:All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.) The majority of it I don't think I need much help with in refuting but there's two suppositions that I haven't really seen before here: quote:That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect. This is new to me; the Soviets used large formations of paratroopers in the East but they seemed to mostly be failed operations IIRC that helped to buy time. Would there have been a situation where the German version wouldn't have been mowed down from lack of heavy equipment?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
I think the question of 'could the Nazis have won WWII' is fundamentally a political question and not a military one. If the allies started to consider negotiated settlements when things got bad then yeah, they could have won.Main Paineframe posted:The main German problem, prior to the invasion of the USSR, was that Britain was absolutely not inclined to come to a negotiated peace with Germany, and there was no particular reason to assume that would change over time. The British blockade of Germany was much more complete than German attempts to disrupt British shipping, and once it became clear that Germany was unable or unwilling to invade England, German military and diplomatic advantages would inevitably decline over time. The British simply had no pressing reason to leave the war, and a great many reasons to stay in it. I don't agree. Without Soviet and US involvement, there's no conceivable way for the British to win the war. As things continue, there would be surely mounting pressure to sign some sort of ceasefire agreement that would guarantee British independence, say, while leaving Germany dominant in Europe. As for the inevitability of a Soviet/Germany war, I think possibly you could instead end up in a cold war situation where Germany develops nuclear weapons and holds an uneasy peace with a Russia with a military too strong to invade. Edit: ^^^ lol, "I'm really good at a war game, so I am An Authority on history." Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
lol that guy is an idiot. German tanks were decidedly inferior to a whole lot of people's vehicles at the start of WW2 (at least in a tactical sense), most notably the French. gently caress, German armor was notoriously unable to deal with the better types of Soviet armor (KV-1, T-34) when they ran across them in 1941. German soldiers had to get REALLY loving good at killing tanks without armor or AT support in that period. Germany's armored successes were purely due to doctrine and how they were employed in the field. It had gently caress all to do with the specific vehicles. edit: hey, if an appeal to authority is what you want tell him that a guy with a PhD in German history says he's a loving idiot. Fangz posted:
edit x2: I beat my last two games of Stellaris. NASA should hire me to consult on getting boots on Mars. edit x3: I shoot targets on the weekend sometimes. I own rifles. Clearly the USMC should have me instruct their snipers. edit x4: Masturbation is totally the same as sex, right guys? edit x5: I have shitposted on the internet. This makes me a published author. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
buy him an account
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:53
|
|