|
Considering that the Nazis were basically WWI vets for logistics collapse "truth", it makes a lot of sense that they didn't believe in logistics. After all, if there isn't anyone to do it can a dolchstoß happen?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:Dream team of admirals could be fun. Horatio Nelson, Chester Nimitz, and John Jellicoe are a good starting point. Alternatively there's the comedy crew of Beatty, Patton, and French just throwing men and boats into the meatgrinder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
If you want a nightmare team of military commanders, just take the dream team and put Serbian king Milan in charge of it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What would people pick as a Nightmare Team of military leaders? Grigory Kulik in charge of armour, George McClellan in charge of military intel, Gaius Terentius Varro commanding the infantry, Napoleon Bonaparte handling the logistics? Robert E. Lee picking the cause to fight for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Robert E. Lee picking the cause to fight for. gallas will handle propaganda
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
To be honest, awareness of the worst case scenario on the Eastern Front would've probably ended in "Actually let's not bother", and since there was no way in hell the Nazis weren't going to give the bolsheviks a kicking and aryanise the lands I can't see any route where the awkward truth doesn't get ignored or repressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
War is Boring has taken up the tank destroyer cause! I don't think they end up anywhere differently than I've seen discussed here, tbh (tank destroyers get used like tanks, so you might as well have tanks instead, the end). https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-armys-tank-destroyers-weren-t-the-failure-history-has-made-them-out-to-be-ec595d8a433e#.js45minxu
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:. The German Agricultural sector was protected by its government from international trade and as a result ended up as a very inefficient beast and had no real reason to develop and innovate. I don't understand this at all. Was this written by an economist? If so it makes sense... If a farmer could improve yields and profits they would. Only thing stopping them is what the market will pay and getting loans from banks to buy capital* Every farmer wants to increase yields. Reasons why they wouldn't is restriction, not protection. IE the government setting a low price so not worth spending $xx on capital for $x gain. Government blocking exports, so can't chase higher markets in other countries because can't export. If there's just international protection as you say, there's nothing to stop farmer a improving their yields with equipment, technique and land year after year. Typical of an economist to say import restrictions is the sole cause of course as they love an open market (on their terms) so much. Ignoring the fact if farmers were inefficient due to lack of capital or restrictions, then cheaper imports may have well wiped out all local industry before any war and the nation be even less capable of local food production capability during any war if farms were bought up by conglomerates from a belligerent country that destroyed everything before leaving. *E: or individual stupidity on the part of everyone that's owned a farm I guess. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
WW2 Data We're starting to push into the higher calibers with Part 1 of the 75mm arsenal for the Italians. What were the 75/13mm projectiles used with? Skoda 75 mm Model 15 Which rounds could be used in the Italian heavy tank, the Carro Armato P.40? Which ones could be used in the Semovente 75/18 or 75/34? Which rounds had double rotating bands? And which round was called a "dual-purpose" round by both the Italians and Germans? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Napoleon was fairly capable in terms of logistics. For real logistics fuckups you need someone like Erwin "My supply line runs through hundreds of kilometers of desert and across a sea that is heavily interdicted by the enemy, let's attack anyway because lol so random" Rommel. Is that any worse than Dwight "let's march to Berlin when the nearest operational ports are in Normandy, Rhine should be no obstacle roflol" Eisenhower, really? Generals aren't clairvoyeurs, especially when the enemy has no decency to stop fighting after their initial defeat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Is that any worse than Dwight "let's march to Berlin when the nearest operational ports are in Normandy, Rhine should be no obstacle roflol" Eisenhower, really? Generals aren't clairvoyeurs, especially when the enemy has no decency to stop fighting after their initial defeat. Rommel's problem wasn't as much the lack of port capacity but this: - His supply could be intercepted, which happened a lot - He didn't have the logistics to actually get stuff to the front. The US could afford to burn (fictional example) ten gallons of gas for every gallon that gets to the front, but Rommel couldn't afford that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:he knows what machines are, the real problem would be getting him to use them like cav instead of like artillery, which in the Imperial army of the time was large and stationary. spin it as "everyone can drive a carriage with a large gun on it now" and less like "cannon that take themselves to the field" and we're good Or point him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_wagon which would be his closest point of reference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Tias posted:Of all the zeitgeists that could enter the mainstream political thoughts, I wish "fascism makes you stupid" would win. It's hard to tell whether fascism makes you stupid or stupidity makes you fascist tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
For the farms I'd bet that the preservation of small farms is what prevented agricultural growth, since the individual farmers likely wouldn't have hit the break even point on mechanization.Nenonen posted:Is that any worse than Dwight "let's march to Berlin when the nearest operational ports are in Normandy, Rhine should be no obstacle roflol" Eisenhower, really? Generals aren't clairvoyeurs, especially when the enemy has no decency to stop fighting after their initial defeat. It is. Eisenhower at least got closer to the end goal. Rommel was fighting a delaying action and decided the best way to do that was to stretch the lines so much that it made the Italian transports doing supply incredibly vulnerable and made his corps use about an army's worth of trucks while the Eastern Front was on. It's really hard to state just how total a failure Rommel managed from an operational and strategic perspective, but there wasn't a single upside to his campaign at any level higher than tactical. The only thing that might have redeemed it is if he'd captured Suez, and that wasn't in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I'd pick Bull Halsey instead of Nimitz, because he was more in the vein of the other two. Kind of the whole point of the action at Leyte Gulf was to lure the Japanese fleet into the guns of the American battleships, but then Halsey fell for the decoy and took the Iowas off after the empty enemy carriers, and Taffy 3 and a couple of ancient BBs actually won the battle. Halsey really wanted to outdo Jellicoe, but missed his chance. Eh, I think I'd want Nimitz for overall strategic command. Nelson or Jellicoe for actually leading the fleet on the flagship. Nelson and Jellicoe would probably be a great tag-team in the field, but I say look no further than the man who won the Pacific War as the big cheese. Halsey might be the man for the destroyers, though I keep thinking the WW2 IJN had to have a good destroyer guy given how proficient and dangerous Japanese destroyers and their crews were. I'm not very familiar with the IJN's leadership outside Yamamoto, though, so I don't know if there is such a candidate. Nagumo, maybe? Shattered Sword says he a pretty good destroyerman, just hopelessly out of his depth with carriers. Yamamoto himself... I could see him as the navy all-star carrier dude, but only if his bosses could keep him on a tight leash. Loath as I am to praise a Nazi, I'd go with Dönitz for the submarine command. Rickover's big thing was recognizing and pioneering revolutionary technology in the fleet, but Dönitz I think has the edge for actually commanding submarine operations at war. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:I don't understand this at all. Scale is important in mechanized farming, and agricultural protectionism generally makes small farms more profitable or at least viable. You are viewing yield increases as a linear function of capital input; in reality, it's a stepwise function and the capital investments are incredibly large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:I don't understand this at all. It is a rule of thumb of economics that protected markets are less efficient and less innovative (See the car industry of the UK, the need for the EU Common Agricultural Policy, or Japanese industry pre WW2). In a case where there are cheap imports broadly speaking there are two options 1: Match whatever is causing them to become cheap in order to compete. 2: Make those imports artificially more expensive, usually via the means of governmental tarrifs. What happened in unprotected markets is what happened in Britain, farming sector shrunk and specialised into high value goods, this left them with a lot of untapped capacity that wasn't economic to actually employ, but as soon as war came they moved to reuse that capacity and boosted domestic food production again because the government started setting minimum food prices and providing other guarantees that made it economic to farm. Pre-war as farms went out of business or people moved elsewhere their land was bought up cheaply by other farmers to form larger and more efficient farms or just lay unused. The British agriculture sector was about 50% more efficient than Germany in terms of output per worker even pre WW1 and notably only slightly less efficient than the US agricultural sector (by around 3%). While the countries are not neccesarily 100% comparable the biggest distinguishable difference between Germany and the UK was whether there was significant tarrifs and other trade impediments put on food by their government. In Germany this didnt happen, farms did not go out of business because of the protectionist policies of the German government, you are partially right in the sense of because they were essentially subsistence farmers they didnt have a huge amount of money and there was less land available to actually buy because they were surrounded by lots of other small farms. If people are not compelled to move due to actually going out of business then it would be a risk for them to sell up and try to get a job in the city, why should they if they are making a living and are relatively happy where they are? Some may choose to do so but there wont be a really significant amount of people all making the same decision to uproot their life and take the leap into the unknown without a strong external influence. Protectionism was not the only reason that the German farming sector was inefficient, but i think it is reasonable to say that they remained inefficient because they had no extenal impetus to develop. (It may also be that German business lending was less developed or available, i dont know if that is true or not). Not everybody acts in a rational way entirely driven by money and there was a strong element of traditionalism in German farming which discouraged change, those people were actively courted by politicians because they represented a large section of german society which stopped them from getting the impetus to change. It is plausible that if they had not adopted those policies they would have had less farming capacity at the start of the war, but im not arguing that it was the worst course for them to embark on, just that it was a major reason why the sector was so inefficient, it is also possible that they would have reoorgansied into larger more efficient farms and eased their food issues, we cannot with any certainty say which way they would have jumped, though either way would have factored into war thinking and changed everything. they were not forced to compete with New World industrial farming, they competed with other farmers who were more similar (Russian, Romanian etc.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:For the farms I'd bet that the preservation of small farms is what prevented agricultural growth, since the individual farmers likely wouldn't have hit the break even point on mechanization. But who in the weimar era had that sort of money? So it would be selling out cheaply their food production to members of the entente or USA before WW1 which may not have been so great for them either. Late edit: I started writing this before the replies above by KG jr and polyakov so hadn't read them before posting fwiw Fo3 fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Halsey might be the man for the destroyers, though I keep thinking the WW2 IJN had to have a good destroyer guy given how proficient and dangerous Japanese destroyers and their crews were. I'm not very familiar with the IJN's leadership outside Yamamoto, though, so I don't know if there is such a candidate. Nagumo, maybe? Shattered Sword says he a pretty good destroyerman, just hopelessly out of his depth with carriers. Yamamoto himself... I could see him as the navy all-star carrier dude, but only if his bosses could keep him on a tight leash. There is no way Yamamoto gets teamed up with allied commanders without trying to stab or punch them. Alternatively he tries the whole "Go with my plan or I resign" and Nimitz accepts his resignation so he doesn't have to put up with his bullshit. What American admiral is most likely to get into a bustup with Yamamoto? Fo3 posted:Yeah, what I took from it was someone saying imports should have driven prices down so much that small farms went broke and got bought out in a firesale by a large corp that had the benefit of scale of economy and a huge bankroll. There was plenty of money floating around in Weimar Germany if there was an opportunity to get into a new business avenue - the country had 2 massive inflationary episodes by they were not dirt poor for 20 years. They actually recovered pretty well after the first hyperinflation, it wasn't until the second one hit that things really went down the shitter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Halsey might be the man for the destroyers, though I keep thinking the WW2 IJN had to have a good destroyer guy given how proficient and dangerous Japanese destroyers and their crews were. I'm not very familiar with the IJN's leadership outside Yamamoto, though, so I don't know if there is such a candidate. Nagumo, maybe? Shattered Sword says he a pretty good destroyerman, just hopelessly out of his depth with carriers. Yamamoto himself... I could see him as the navy all-star carrier dude, but only if his bosses could keep him on a tight leash. Raizo Tanaka's probably your best bet for IJN destroyerman. Fo3 posted:Yeah, what I took from it was someone saying imports should have driven prices down so much that small farms went broke and got bought out in a firesale by a large corp that had the benefit of scale of economy and a huge bankroll. Worked pretty well for Germany getting their hands on a Ford subsidiary for WWII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Yamamoto himself... I could see him as the navy all-star carrier dude, but only if his bosses could keep him on a tight leash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:I don't understand this at all. I don't know why you're dissing on economists so hard. Consider the effects of an import tariff whose effects are to set the import price of grain to X+10, where X is the international market rate. Then our domestic grain grower would naturally set his domestic price to be as close to that as possible. Thus, as long as he is producing enough to satisfy the domestic german market, he's enjoying the full benefits. But, suppose he now doubles his yield. Then there's a problem - domestic supply is now fully satisfied, which means his surplus supply has to be sold on the international market, for a lot less. That means proportionally, his profit from improving his yield is a lot less than without the import tariff. Is he gonna bother if he's living a comfortable and happy life already? Maybe not. In a sense, protectionism sets up pseudo-monopolies in each state, which insulates local industries from the effects of new innovations elsewhere. In the same way that monopolies don't tend to innovate, neither do these protected industries under many circumstances. "If a farmer could improve yields and profits they would" is overly simplistic, because it doesn't consider the factor of risk, and opportunity costs. A businessman earning 50k might be very keen on risking losing 20% of his profit (10k) in return for potentially doubling his yield and making 50k. A businessman under a tariff system earning 200k already is going to be rather less keen risking losing 40k (again, 20% of his profit) in return for making that same 50k on the international market. The decision making frameworks change. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:What American admiral is most likely to get into a bustup with Yamamoto? Halsey
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:but that's not what you prepare for, you prepare for the worst-case scenario whether or not it'll actually happen One thing I've learned about the Nazis (I suspect this applies to all fascist powers) is that they were cockeyed optimists, through and through. I know we've talked before about racial superiority or strength of will being a magical force that fills all gaps and solves all problems, and maybe when you are carrying around that in your intellectual toolkit you end up being very optimistic? Maybe if you think one Aryan soldier is literally worth 1000 Slavic untermenchen attacking the Soviet Union sorta makes sense. Another thing that burned up any caution the Nazis had was the astonishing succsess they had early war. Basically they had succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams, and that sorta thing goes to your head. Later, the Nazis had problems facing reality, as to do that would be to admit that the war was in some sense unwinnable, or that mistakes had been made. I know Hitler, upon being told how many aircraft were going to be needed to defend Reich airspace given Allied production said quote:"It's absolute nonsense,” Hitler shouted. “If the figures of 5000 a month were right, you would be right too. In that case, I would have to withdraw from Eastern Front forthwith, and apply all resources to air defense. But they are not right! I will not stand for such nonsense.” Basically the sunk costs fallacy. Kemper Boyd posted:Rommel's problem wasn't as much the lack of port capacity but this: Rommel was a excellent battlefield commander, but despite his repeated victories, he never had the forces necessary to actually take Egypt. I think he was allowed to do whatever he wanted because the Nazis liked victories? It did lead to Hitler sending (and losing) 250K worth of troops in Tunisia in 1943, so at least it really hurt the Nazis in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:There is no way Yamamoto gets teamed up with allied commanders without trying to stab or punch them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Rommel was a excellent battlefield commander ____/ 17thcenturysay
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
e: ^^ true datHEY GAL posted:you just need to hire a guy to follow him around and go 'but what if you're wrong' every minute of every day. like a roman triumph. Sadly, Yamamoto was a dude who understood the big strategic picture - that Japan was starting a fight it couldn't win in the long run - which is why he decided on high risk strategies in order to win. I don't really know about the views of Japanese admirals and generals aside from him, but essentially he was the only one with that nagging voice built in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
the shadow of frederick the great is really long
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:06
|
|
lenoon posted:Raglan and Cardigan. Eh, the whole Crimean War was a cluster gently caress of a conflict and the whole system these two men were involved in needed a major reboot. Both in their day were decent officers and soldiers, but lovely over promoted or over the hill men who shouldn't have been put in charge of a modern military campaign out of the blue.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:e: ^^ true dat this is also related to why ernst von mansfeld keeps getting hired despite losing almost (?) every battle he was ever in--he could raise troops. also good at asymmetrical warfare, according to Some Article I Read HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Halsey Make John Paul Jones Yamamoto's flag captain. Jones actually was a [Russian] admiral, but I think I'd want him as someone's captain rather than a flag officer himself. He might adapt well to destroyer command, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:One thing I've learned about the Nazis (I suspect this applies to all fascist powers) is that they were cockeyed optimists, through and through. I know we've talked before about racial superiority or strength of will being a magical force that fills all gaps and solves all problems, and maybe when you are carrying around that in your intellectual toolkit you end up being very optimistic? Maybe if you think one Aryan soldier is literally worth 1000 Slavic untermenchen attacking the Soviet Union sorta makes sense. Another thing that burned up any caution the Nazis had was the astonishing succsess they had early war. Basically they had succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams, and that sorta thing goes to your head. Well, the fanaticism that some units displayed did help them perform better. And when you've built yourself up for 25+ years as "We didn't lose against THE RUSSIANS  in World War 1!" "If it wasn't for the AMERICANS !"So when they completely wipe the floor with Poland in a month and then, 6 months later, do the same to the French and Low Countries, its no surprise that they'd have a very bloated ego by that point. After all, it took 4 years of bloody, worthless fighting in the west last time and they lost! Now you've cut that to 3 months and everyone's home by Christmas. And the Fascist rhetoric of "We have but to kick the door open for the entire structure to collapse" was looking rather good in the early stages of Barbarossa with the massive land grabs and deep penetrations. As for Rommel, iirc, he became well known after "Ghost Division" made important gains in France. Coupled with his performance in World War 1, he was seen as a good propaganda tool. He would've probably been captured in Africa had he not been sick from stress/work. Also, its not just the troops he (Hitler) lost in Tunisia. All those aircraft, the fuel, and the ships (transferred to the Italian Navy or otherwise) could've been used elsewhere. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Make John Paul Jones Yamamoto's flag captain. Jones actually was a [Russian] admiral, but I think I'd want him as someone's captain rather than a flag officer himself. He might adapt well to destroyer command, though. Oh sure shack Yamamoto up with someone who was a Russian admiral, that'll go well. I can just imagine Yamamoto poo poo-talking Jones about stuff that happened centuries after his death. "HEY rear end in a top hat DID YOU KNOW YOUR NAVY MINED ITSELF INTO A HARBOR?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:As for Rommel, iirc, he became well known after "Ghost Division" made important gains in France. Coupled with his performance in World War 1, he was seen as a good propaganda tool. He would've probably been captured in Africa had he not been sick from stress/work. Dude suffered from depression, didn't he? I think he might have been fighting the sadbrains when the second battle of El Alamein happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
didn't ALL PRO SEXMAN mention some admiral's sushi opinions? we also need to get a milhist menu going
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Wasn't J.P.J. a pedophile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dude suffered from depression, didn't he? I think he might have been fighting the sadbrains when the second battle of El Alamein happened. Not sure, to be honest. I've only read his WW1 Biography so far, but I do know that he constantly overworked himself and had to be hospitalized on his return to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Re: Rommel : It's a bit unfair to say he was a poo poo commander because North Africa was a logistical clusterfuck. He wasn't the commander in chief of Nazi Germany or even head of OKW. He got handed his assignment and did what he could. We can argue over whether he did that well, but the decision to fight in N Africa wasn't his Even the decision to fight there has to be looked at in context. It wasn't just Nazis being crazy and wanting to fight everywhere at once. Italy kicked that off in 1940 and got their poo poo pushed in. Rommel was sent south to prevent that from utterly collapsing because that would have been a Bad Thing for Mussolini domestically and Italy was pretty much the only ally they had at that point. Meanwhile Italy wanted to go there because that was historically a place they concerned themselves with. Mussolini sure as poo poo wasn't getting a slice of France so he needed to get spoils where he could, while he could. Remember the Italians start their campaign while the fighting is still happening in France. It was both a way to distract everyone from a continental fight that no one expected to conclude that quick and, later, a way to get spoils before the war ended. "Grab some poo poo so we have leverage to demand concessions before the Brits surrender in six months" is a thought that makes sense in 1940. ALSO remember that Italian leadership was painfully aware of how badly they got shafted at Versailles. They were in the winning side and got gently caress all from the dismembering of both Austro Hungary and the Ottomans, two whole empires that were very much in their neck of the woods. That was a political disaster and the discontent stemming from it was partially responsible for Mussolini taking power in the first place. With seventy years of distance it's clear that those trucks and 250k soldiers would have been better used in Russia, but there are historical reasons that led relatively rational men down that path beyond "lol fascists so dumb."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I still think there's valid criticism of Rommel, given that he's making all sorts of daring and dramatic attacks during what is, essentially, garrison duty. For some reason he's trying to capture the Suez, despite the fact his mission statement is just "prevent the italians from totally collapsing".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Really this thread skews way to hard on the Axis powers being stupid. They weren't the unstoppable evil geniuses of post war myth and wheraboo fantasy but they also weren't the loving keystone cops.spectralent posted:I still think there's valid criticism of Rommel, given that he's making all sorts of daring and dramatic attacks during what is, essentially, garrison duty. For some reason he's trying to capture the Suez, despite the fact his mission statement is just "prevent the italians from totally collapsing". Sure, but a lot of people are laying all of North Africa at his feet. Saying he was over aggressive is one thing, saying he was an idiot deluded by the myth of the Germanic will to triumph because he went to Africa in the first place is something else. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:14
|
|