|
cheerfullydrab posted:If there are an infinite number of universes, then there are an infinite number of incredibly boring universes where things only happen the slightest bit different. I like the one crazy alternate universe where, in the early morning of December 7th, Admiral Nagumo inadvertantly spills a small drop of tea on his arm, doesn't notice it, it doesn't affect his thoughts at all, no Butterfly Effect occurs, and everything else happens exactly the same way. In our reality, Nagumo drank that tea without any spillage whatsoever. I'm thinking of writing a 700 page alternate history novel about it. You're like an alternate universe turtledove where all of your writing ideas aren't "WHAT IF THE BAD GUYS WON"
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Let me tell you about my unsettling reality where tea was never invented.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let me tell you about my unsettling reality where tea was never invented. That would actually be a huge historical change!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let me tell you about my unsettling reality where tea was never invented.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:On the other hand, especially with the mid-war scenarios, there's a rather large chance Hitler would be replaced by somebody competent. There's a gap in the list between May 1941, where the Battle of Britain has already been lost and the USN is tussling with U-Boats in the Atlantic, and March 1943, where it barely seems to matter anymore who's in charge. I don't think there's a mid-war scenario where a more competent in whatever field Führer makes a difference. Do you have someone in particular in mind? I don't think that Himmler or Göring would be a noticeable improvement competencewise for example. A General? The biggest difference would be unconditionally surrendering earlier, which would save potentially millions of lives, ironically mostly German - I seem to recall that half the German casualties happened in the last year of the war - but that's generally not the kind of scenario althist people feel inspired to crank out half a million words about.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let me tell you about my unsettling reality where tea was never invented. Pass.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Is there anything like armoured champion for WWII airplanes? After binging so much on tank design, it seems like the on-paper stat of a plane matter much more than with tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:That would actually be a huge historical change! Id read it
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Apparently I can have too much WWII. OK, I'm going to Prague for the coming week, what should I see besides the tank and aviation museums?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:That would actually be a huge historical change! In lieu of tea, Englishmen would be using up all the opium the East India Company could produce.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Is there anything like armoured champion for WWII airplanes? After binging so much on tank design, it seems like the on-paper stat of a plane matter much more than with tanks. Individual aircraft did have large real world impact on campaigns if that's what you mean. I'm sure Mr. Bewbis has something like a comprehensive list, but the P-51's impact was enormous; it was a major factor in winning the air war in Europe.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:If there are an infinite number of universes, then there are an infinite number of incredibly boring universes where things only happen the slightest bit different. I like the one crazy alternate universe where, in the early morning of December 7th, Admiral Nagumo inadvertantly spills a small drop of tea on his arm, doesn't notice it, it doesn't affect his thoughts at all, no Butterfly Effect occurs, and everything else happens exactly the same way. In our reality, Nagumo drank that tea without any spillage whatsoever. I'm thinking of writing a 700 page alternate history novel about it. The author's version of Midway strains credulity. Somehow just to name drop, a fighter commander from the last battle shows up and messes everything up just to ratchet up tension. Then out of the blue another guy grabs his wing pair, drops his one bomb on a carrier that would be unscathed and somehow sinks it. Then of course he gets written out the day after.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Better than that Taffy 3 bullshit. A destroyer loving up a pair of heavy crusiers? Please 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Apparently I can have too much WWII.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
That would be the best. To have as a reference a documented honest to God interview with real-life Lieutenant so and so where he said that on the morning of Midway he had three pieces of bacon, and have him be a viewpoint character in your alternate history novel where everything is exactly the same except at the beginning of the story, the point of divergence, he has only two pieces of bacon. Then have people criticize the novel for being so unlikely.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:That would be the best. To have as a reference a documented honest to God interview with real-life Lieutenant so and so where he said that on the morning of Midway he had three pieces of bacon, and have him be a viewpoint character in your alternate history novel where everything is exactly the same except at the beginning of the story, the point of divergence, he has only two pieces of bacon. Then have people criticize the novel for being so unlikely. Cheerfullydrab's For want of Bacon tells a gripping story of naval warfare, espionage and personal drama. While the action sequences are well written and have no glaring scientific implausibilities, the overall plot is simply laughably bad. After setting a scene where the Americans are with their backs to the wall after a sneaky attack on their battleships (somehow the Japanese understood the value of the aircraft carrier as the decisive arm but still opted to sink the US battleships - this plot hole is never explained), the author, apparently afraid that the designated heroes could not win against the villains (who, it must be said, are an almost painfully orientalist caricature going on and on about honor - they literally carry swords into battle in the 20th century) at once gives them the ability to read the Japanese radio code. This is not the only break the heroes get in this book, as the villains show a staggering amount of incompetence, which is repeatedly contrasted with the Americans who, as one comes to expect from this author, can do no wrong. Apparently Japanese people are too dumb to understand that fuel burns or that radio contact to the defending fighters is a good idea. The Americans, of course, have all those advantages, including a tactic that nullifies the advantage of maneuverability of the Japanese fighters the book spends several chapters hyping up. In the end, as could be expected, the good guys win a crushing victory while losing a single carrier to a submarine in what can only be described as the most ham-fisted way to highlight the randomness of war yet put to paper. I rate this book 2 out of 5 stars.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Archangel is wise beyond his years I'm guessing about that last bit, obviously
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
In fairness it took the Lexington for the US to figure out that avgas is half a fuel air bomb. It's just goofy as hell that the Wasp just had to be the carrier to take a torp hit.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
The worst part of "For Want Of Bacon" would be where a few lovely torpedo bombers armed with weapons that simply don't work launch an entirely ineffectual airstrike on the Kido Butai where they all get killed, and it makes the battle for the Americans. I would read that and then go on the internet to describe the book as "sub-Turtledove" or "so ridiculous I actually laughed out loud".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, I'm going to Prague for the coming week, what should I see besides the tank and aviation museums? How about the actual window through which the famous defenestration of Prague took place? 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How about the actual window through which the famous defenestration of Prague took place? Which one? Prague does have a trend of throwing people out of windows.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Which one? Prague does have a trend of throwing people out of windows. Both!  
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:and the Nazis would have a significant air advantage. Didn't they have overwhelming air superiority at Stalingrad as well?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Didn't they have overwhelming air superiority at Stalingrad as well? Even if they did the Luftwaffe didn't have the lift capacity to take advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How about the actual window through which the famous defenestration of Prague took place? HeyGal's new apartment!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:How about the actual window through which the famous defenestration of Prague took place? "The Defenestration of Prague" always sounds like someone stole all their windows.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let me tell you about my unsettling reality where tea was never invented. Replaced instead by liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I rate this book 2 out of 5 stars. Somewhere Ive read a thing where people go through the entire ww2/cold war and do this. "Oh sure, they end the season with a superweapon they've never mentioned, and then they never mention it again!"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Replaced instead by liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. So, coffee.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:People are putting too much emphasis on three vs two man turrets. Yes they are superior for all the reasons people mentioned but that won't win campaigns on their own. Frankly equipment matters very little as long as over all it's within the saw generation of each other. I don't think anyone is saying that a Three-Man turret will win a campaign, but a division of 3-man turret-equipped tanks will perform better than the division fitted with 2-man turret-equipped tanks. Does that mean they win every battle? No, because that ignores everything from terrain to time of day to battle readiness. Better equipment matters, and always will, but saying "X Tank is better because look at its stats!" ignores everything I mentioned above as well as training, logistical support, and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Part of the advantage of a tank with a three man turret is that it gets put in the sort of formation that guys who put three men in a turret make, and that's a more capable armored force. There's a bunch of cart/horse there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:somehow the Japanese understood the value of the aircraft carrier as the decisive arm They didn't though, just for the record. Both in pre-war planning and even at Midway and Leyte post-Pearl, the IJN expected BBs to deliver the decisive blow in the decisive battle.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
quote:Communications Cut With the Falklands http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/03/world/communications-cut-with-the-falklands.html
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So, coffee. I was going for a Douglas Adams reference but yes. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:56
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/03/world/communications-cut-with-the-falklands.html You really can't aruge with an invasion force, they get all kinds of snippy at you.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Is there anything like armoured champion for WWII airplanes? After binging so much on tank design, it seems like the on-paper stat of a plane matter much more than with tanks. Any plane that had a long list of upgrades will generally attract the same amount of people who will argue that "X plane won the war", or lost it, etc. "What if Germany had 5,000 more Me-262's?" "Spitfire won the Battle of Britain" "The Il-2 Sturmovik was the best ground attack aircraft of all time." and the list goes on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
I don't want to get all 'full wehraboo' but with tanks, anything as long as its in the same generation is roughly interchangeable as what really matters is who gets off the first shot. But dogfighting actually seems like a place where relatively minor performance advantages could make a huge difference in whose going home. Might not be true, sure but can I get a reading recommendation/effort post on it?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I don't want to get all 'full wehraboo' but with tanks, anything as long as its in the same generation is roughly interchangeable as what really matters is who gets off the first shot. But dogfighting actually seems like a place where relatively minor performance advantages could make a huge difference in whose going home. You could argue that whoever gets on the other's tail first is what really matters. Tanks are as interchangeable as planes, imo.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I don't want to get all 'full wehraboo' but with tanks, anything as long as its in the same generation is roughly interchangeable as what really matters is who gets off the first shot. But dogfighting actually seems like a place where relatively minor performance advantages could make a huge difference in whose going home. Jobbo_Fett posted:You could argue that whoever gets on the other's tail first is what really matters. Tanks are as interchangeable as planes, imo. Agreed. Tactics, pilot skill and initial engagement conditions still matter more than the actual airframe. It is actually fairly uncommon for one plane to be worse at everything than another in WW2, and as a result, good pilots can always play to their strengths. This is evident even in flightsims, where engagements are usually intentionally set up to be as fair as possible. If another pilot surprises you, or you encounter an enemy and they've got a huge altitude advantage, you're hosed, even if the enemy is in a plane that's slower and less manoeuvrable. You can read stories from pilots, and they never go "but the enemy plane was slightly slower than mine, so I had no trouble getting him." It's always "He hadn't seen us yet, so we came from on high with the sun to our backs and blew him to bits before he even knew we were coming", or "Poor jonny never stood a chance, there were just too many of them and too few of us". Equipment is always important to the outcome of the battle in spite of what this thread occasionally says, buuuuuuuuut it's often the least important factor. Numbers, tactics/doctrine/skill, and terrain(or weather and altitude in the case of aerial warfare) generally matter more. This is sort of a mathematical thing, really. Having a plane that is 10% faster is not going to be as important as having two planes. Having 10% more altitude is not going to make a huge difference, either. Having 10% more planes, same thing, makes stuff all difference. The only time equipment is the decisive factor is when the difference is big, just like every other factor. That's where this thread's argument of "the best tank is the one that is there when you need it" comes from. Having a tank when your opponent does not have a tank is a huge difference. In an actual war, it is always easier to get your big decisive factor in numbers, doctrine, skill or terrain than in equipment when your opponent is of a similar size and industrial capacity. You can see equipment being the decisive factor in the gulf war, for example, so it does happen, but not in WW2.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Splode posted:Agreed. I was just going to post something similar - dogfights don't actually happen that much. Most of the pilots who were shot down never saw the guy who got them. A nice example of this is the battle of Guadalcanal where the US managed to stay in control of the air despite having shittier planes than the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 08:20
|
|