|
Hermsgervørden posted:I would subscribe to HBO to watch Hey Gal's Regiment: Defenestrations and Flag Demonstrations If I had a genie, this would legit be like 2 of my wishes.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
In 1944, in terms of sheer industrial capacity /potential, would you take the United States, or the rest of the world?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
thank you guys; sometimes i despair about my ability to finish my dissertation, and your support means a lot.  edit: one day i'll finish this, and then God willing it'll become a book. then yall can read it. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In 1944, in terms of sheer industrial capacity /potential, would you take the United States, or the rest of the world? The US has a lot of guns and such, but I don't think they have enough dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:I have the sudden mental image of Mad Max: Thirty Years War Edition, where you have the guitar guy on the drummer truck, but instead it's a flag twirling guy on a wagon full of drummers. I was thinking the exact same thing. How do you say "witness me, bloodbag" in German?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:And they are one of the new armies taking the whole electronic warfare threat seriously. They also tested an anti-satellite weapon successfully. In a war, this would probably mean fun times for everyone depending on stuff like GPS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Libluini posted:They also tested an anti-satellite weapon successfully. In a war, this would probably mean fun times for everyone depending on stuff like GPS. I mean, if you let me bring a frag grenade to space, I too will have a weapon against hostile GPS coverage. And friendly GPS coverage. And the International Space Station. And...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
To keep the conversation on the topic of the 30YW, I recently finished reading Furies by Lauro Martines. I was not particularly impressed. It felt like more of an introduction to early modern warfare than any substantial analysis of it. I don't have any real problems with the main test per se, but I was really annoyed by Martines taking smug potshots at just about everyone else in the field. He'll throw in little mentions every so often about how no one talks about civilian casualties or about the complicated logistics or about how many laborers it took to conduct sieges and whatever, but Goeffrey Parker was talking about all of that poo poo in the 70s! Granted, I'm not very well-versed in scholarship on warfare between 1550 and 1750, but I still would say that Martines is prone to making GBS threads on the entire field. For a guy who takes so many potshots at other historians, you think he'd tighten up a little when he mentions things outside of his field. Most of the times when he talked about late medieval warfare, he was relying on feudal stereotypes to describe and hadn't bothered to familiarize himself with much recent late medieval work. I dunno, maybe I'm judging him based on what i wanted rather than what he was trying to do, but I felt like this is a haphazard book even as an introduction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:The US has a lot of guns and such, but I don't think they have enough dudes. Do the other guys have enough cities for that to matter? Push comes to shove and they've got more navy than the world probably a few times over and some real air power. It really depends on the fight though whether it's something that matches their strengths or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Yeah I read some Dolan/Breecher articles about how China's anti ship missiles can gently caress up any carrier at a fairly decent range and it's why they are investing on those instead of a carrier fleet of their own. (That and them only wanting to project on the southeast seas instead of spreading all over the world like the US) Well they don't have major threats to their African assets yet but don't count on that lasting forever.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In 1944, in terms of sheer industrial capacity /potential, would you take the United States, or the rest of the world? The rest of the world, looking at the numbers in The Economics of World War Two which is a really interesting if dry book, they were only really ahead in one field and that was naval production, give the industries of the axis powers, especially of Germany, what they need to operate effectively and the bomber free skies with which to do it it will ramp up quite quickly; also given that to meet the manpower needs of fighting the rest of the world a lot more of the US population would need to be called up with a corresponding negative effect on industrial production that this would entail means that im not sure the US would reasonably be able to ramp up production much more than it had at that stage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Dead serious, my friend. A 17th century company flag is this massive piece of thin silk mounted on a staff that the fendrich holds on his shoulder with one hand. On special occasions, especially in areas where the ground is paved, like in city squares or the courtyards of castles, they have a thing where they twirl it. It's called flourishing the flag, displaying the flag, or flag exercises. LordSaturn posted:and it's bristling with pikes
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
 Edit: Sadly the 'shop isn't mine, but by a group called Das TeufelsAlpdrucken Fahnlein Ataxerxes fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Hey Gal, does the 30YW get any more play in German language TV and film?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ataxerxes posted:
Wallenstein I choose you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hey Gal, does the 30YW get any more play in German language TV and film? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenstein_(1978)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
What are Picket Mensters? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
They menst pickets. Sort of like how nebelwerfers werf nebel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:They menst pickets. Sounds painful!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In 1944, in terms of sheer industrial capacity /potential, would you take the United States, or the rest of the world? Tough call. On the one hand, the industrial might of the US was completely unmatched, and even if the US couldn't outproduce the rest of the world on its own it could certainly keep the numbers comparable. You've also got the excellent strategic and geographic location of the US-Canada wouldn't exactly be able to mount much of an offensive into the US, ditto for Mexico, and everyone else has to invade across the ocean, where the US has an unquestionable advantage. To top it off the US controls the Panama Canal, and barring an unmitigated catastrophe would probably be able to destroy the locks before they fell into global hands, greatly restricting the movement of troops and supplies around the world. On the other hand, there's the obvious population disparity-140 million isn't exactly going to take on ~2 billion. And while the US has tremendous reserves of natural resources by itself, it's still going to have to make do without critical supplies like rubber and certain rare minerals. But then again, circa 1944 nothing's getting past the US Navy, and its getting stronger by the minute. Honestly, I'd call it a wash-US Navy would likely be able to protect or deter against any seaborne invasion of the US, and would take an extremely heavy toll on any attempts to ship men and material to South America or Canada for an invasion. But, the US would have a tough (If not impossible) time of launching any invasion of Europe, Africa, or Asia for the same reasons-too hard to protect their lengthy supply lines from an overwhelming foe. Of course, once the B-36 comes online the tables turn completely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
The rest of the world. And the discrepancy is so huge that it's not even a hard comparison to make. The mentality that leads to overlooking all the tiny but important details, like, say, all the external factors that allowed the US to have that kind of industrial capacity, one usually attributes to Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
I think being the only nuclear power in the world for at least a few years would be pretty significant. Say goodbye to London, Berlin, Paris, Moscow, Rio, Beijing etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
my dad posted:The rest of the world. And the discrepancy is so huge that it's not even a hard comparison to make. The mentality that leads to overlooking all the tiny but important details, like, say, all the external factors that allowed the US to have that kind of industrial capacity, one usually attributes to Nazi Germany. The difference is that Nazi Germany was wedged in the middle of Europe, while the US is protected by two massive oceans. Production in the US would obviously suffer from lack of overseas materials, and they'd never be able to actually win a global war (Until, like I said, the B-36 comes online and starts dropping the bomb on everyone), but likewise the rest of the world would have a massive problem in even getting to the US to fight it, especially considering that the only force with that kind of logistical capability and power projection in 1944 was the US Navy itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Canada and Mexico still exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Canada and Mexico still exist. The Mexican army isn't going to make the US shake in its boots anytime soon, and neither is Canada's. The US would also presumably be fighting defensively, and it's just as geographically huge as either neighbor - the US military could afford to trade space for time, and is large enough to likely deal with either invasion. I think the only real problem either could present would be guerilla warfare given the sheer size of the borders involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The Mexican army isn't going to make the US shake in its boots anytime soon, and neither is Canada's. The US would also presumably be fighting defensively, and it's just as geographically huge as either neighbor - the US military could afford to trade space for time, and is large enough to likely deal with either invasion. I think the only real problem either could present would be guerilla warfare given the sheer size of the borders involved. I meant the point that 'the US is defended by two oceans' is rather invalid if there's two big, hostile landing grounds to the north and south of the country. It's not like the 'rest of the world' needs to force a landing in New York, they just need to funnel troops into Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I meant the point that 'the US is defended by two oceans' is rather invalid if there's two big, hostile landing grounds to the north and south of the country. True, but getting those troops from France to Canada is a big loving deal if you have the USN ca. 1945 standing in the way. Even once you land them, it's still a royal loving nightmare getting supplies to them. This is also ignoring all the land based aviation that is going to be absolutely making GBS threads all over the sea lanes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:True, but getting those troops from France to Canada is a big loving deal if you have the USN ca. 1945 standing in the way. Even once you land them, it's still a royal loving nightmare getting supplies to them. And all the American submarines, which will probably be split between the Pacific and Atlantic theaters - maybe even weighted towards the Atlantic. The largest and most successful submarine fleet in history is not something to dismiss out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:True, but getting those troops from France to Canada is a big loving deal if you have the USN ca. 1945 standing in the way. Even once you land them, it's still a royal loving nightmare getting supplies to them. Yes, but there will also be land based RotW aviation operating out of Newfoundland and Iceland etc. The US meanwhile will have to establish airbases in mainland US from scratch. That carrier and submarine fleet in the Pacific needs to make it to the Atlantic across the very toe of South America without any friendly or even neutral ports of resupply. (The Panama canal is very unlikely to be useable.) And depending on how this clusterfuck happens, the entire European theatre USAF might end up stuck in a hostile UK at the start of the war and lost. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
On the Eastern Front in WWII would it be common for their to be clouds "below" or at the altitude that Soviet and Luiftwaffe pilots flew at?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And all the American submarines, which will probably be split between the Pacific and Atlantic theaters - maybe even weighted towards the Atlantic. The largest and most successful submarine fleet in history is not something to dismiss out of hand. Actually weren't there some exercises pitting the US sub fleet against the allied ASW? I'd love to get a good detailed source on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, but there will also be land based RotW aviation operating out of Newfoundland and Iceland etc. The US meanwhile will have to establish airbases in mainland US from scratch. That carrier and submarine fleet in the Pacific needs to make it to the Atlantic across the very toe of South America without any friendly or even neutral ports of resupply. (The Panama canal is very unlikely to be useable.) The us had a poo poo ton of air bases in the US. Where do you think all of the pilots got trained?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The us had a poo poo ton of air bases in the US. Where do you think all of the pilots got trained? And the US even had a pair of carriers in Lake Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And all the American submarines, which will probably be split between the Pacific and Atlantic theaters - maybe even weighted towards the Atlantic. The largest and most successful submarine fleet in history is not something to dismiss out of hand. A large part of why the US fleet was so successful was beacuse of how utterly dismal the IJN ASW efforts were though. I think it probably ends up as a wash, nobody is invading anybody else or even getting within aircraft range of each others shores because carrier aviation just is not up to the task of fighting against the numbers of planes each side can put up from the land. Acebuckeye13 posted:The difference is that Nazi Germany was wedged in the middle of Europe, while the US is protected by two massive oceans. Production in the US would obviously suffer from lack of overseas materials, and they'd never be able to actually win a global war (Until, like I said, the B-36 comes online and starts dropping the bomb on everyone), but likewise the rest of the world would have a massive problem in even getting to the US to fight it, especially considering that the only force with that kind of logistical capability and power projection in 1944 was the US Navy itself. I'm not sure that the A-Bomb would be that decisive, just because in a situation where you have the entire production of the rest of the world churning out fighters and have the capability to man the IADS that would be set up, unescorted bombers are not getting through especially not after the x-thousand mile flight over the atlantic to reach a target, also suddenly the japanese dont have to deal with the chinese so have a lot more men and machines to throw into the pacific to hold islands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:And the US even had a pair of carriers in Lake Michigan. Related question: if you were trying to express to someone how destructive WW2 was to the Soviet Union, and you were going to use America (Or north America) as your example, what would you say? "Imagine if the Nazis conquored the entire NE united States and not only conquered it but literally stole everything of value and burned the rest, and New York City was besieged for like 3 years, and Chicago was taken, but the tide began to turn during an attack and subsequent siege of St. Louis?" "Oh, and like half the industry in the area the Nazis took over was moved by train west of the Rockies. P much while the invasion was happening."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Chinese bandit fact- "North Manchurian chiefs, rather than risk pollution by women, evidently preferred to catch or buy small Siberian bears and live with them instead."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Chinese bandit fact- At least the bear won't ask where you've been can I get an amen fellas you know what I'm sayin'
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Related question: if you were trying to express to someone how destructive WW2 was to the Soviet Union, and you were going to use America (Or north America) as your example, what would you say? "Imagine if the Nazis conquored the entire NE united States and not only conquered it but literally stole everything of value and burned the rest, and New York City was besieged for like 3 years, and Chicago was taken, but the tide began to turn during an attack and subsequent siege of St. Louis?" I would read this, but I pretty much read everything Turtledove prints so... Yes I'm aware of the Civil War Wins series but the above is from a different direction!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Related question: if you were trying to express to someone how destructive WW2 was to the Soviet Union, and you were going to use America (Or north America) as your example, what would you say? "Imagine if the Nazis conquored the entire NE united States and not only conquered it but literally stole everything of value and burned the rest, and New York City was besieged for like 3 years, and Chicago was taken, but the tide began to turn during an attack and subsequent siege of St. Louis?" It depends on how you do it. If I remember correctly the Soviet land lost was in the ballpark of three-quarters of a million square miles. Alaska alone is pretty close to that but I suspect most people don't grasp how big Alaska is. So if I were going to express this in terms most Americans would get, my answer would be 'They invaded Texas, took it, then pushed into Oklahoma and then east east of that, only being stopped in North Carolina at the siege of Charlotte.' Or you could go the other way and say they took The South and part of Texas. I'd have the industry move North for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:04
|
|