|
That bulb underneath the prow of the Yamato was supposed to be a ramming spike but they took it out because they thought it would be too awesome.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That bulb underneath the prow of the Yamato was supposed to be a ramming spike but they took it out because they thought it would be too awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
my dad posted:This is clearly a realistic depiction of WW2 naval combat, and thereby I claim that the US naval doctrine was flawed, carriers are clearly best suited for naval CQC. War in the Pacific actually doesn't a very good job of simulating the type of war that was fought. It's not, ZOMG, if it works in the game then life was like that. But the results in the game match well with what historically did happen when similar conditions were the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
my dad posted:How the gently caress does that work? Well armor wasn't really a thing all that much by the 60s because of the preponderances of firepower that could be slung around. There's gotta be an effort-post about general trends in ship development post world war II right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 03:50
|
|
Is it just a case of "gently caress you, gently caress your entire fleet, I don't care how heavily armored you are and whether or not I'll survive"?
|
BattleMoose posted:My views on WWII naval combat are influenced by my play throughs of this game, versus other humans and of course on what actually happened. "What advice do you, as the youngest American fighting man ever to win both the Navy Cross and the Silver Star, have for any young Marines on their way to Guadalcanal?" Shaftoe doesn't have to think very long... "Just kill the one with the sword first." "Ah...Smarrrt—you target them because they're the officers, right?" "No, fuckhead!" Shaftoe yells. "You kill 'em because they've got loving swords! You ever had anyone running at you waving a loving sword?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That bulb underneath the prow of the Yamato was supposed to be a ramming spike but they took it out because they thought it would be too awesome. are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? Destroyers had a tendency of ramming surfaced submarines and PT boats, that's about it. HMS-Bulldog made to ram u-110, the crew abandoned ship and Bulldog stopped her ram, captured the uboat and a complete enigma machine. JFK's pt-boat, pt 109 was rammed by a Japanese destroyer the Amagiri. There's even a song about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? RMS Queen Mary rammed and cut in half an escorting light cruiser. For those who may be unaware, Grey Hunter is running a day-by-day LP of War in the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
my dad posted:When I played World of Warships, I'd park my carrier as close to the enemy as possible without getting shot, rapid-cycle my bombers to inflict as much damage as possible in as little time as possible until they inevitably all get shot down, and then charge the nearest enemy ship with the intent to either ram it or encourage it to shoot my now useless floating pile of metal instead of something that poses an actual threat.  Probably a stupid question, but that's staged, yes? I guess I think I can even see the explosive. Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? What counts as modern? HMS Dreadnought (yes, that Dreadnought) manage to ram a submarine that happened to surface in the wrong place entirely. It's both the only time a battleship has ever sunk a submarine, and the only naval action Dreadnought ever participated in, which is funny given how revolutionary her design was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? HMS Glowworm rammed Admiral Hipper and her captain won a posthumous VC on the recommendation of the Hipper's captain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
I feel like grey's WITP threads are one of the companion threads to this one, same regulars keep on cropping up to criticise
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Probably a stupid question, but that's staged, yes? I guess I think I can even see the explosive. Here's a longer video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1_YJgKtic
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Here's the nuclear recoiless rifle footage: https://gfycat.com/BleakElatedJaguarundi
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I feel like grey's WITP threads are one of the companion threads to this one, same regulars keep on cropping up to criticise Sometimes, when I follow them, I can't tell the difference between the threads
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
the JJ posted:"What advice do you, as the youngest American fighting man ever to win both the Navy Cross and the Silver Star, have for any young Marines on their way to Guadalcanal?" thanks for posting the loving dumbest quote of all time
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Kanine posted:are there any actual cases of ships ramming eachother in modern naval warfare? It's been used in recent times when actually firing shots is seen as too great an escalation. There was a bunch in the Cod Wars, it happened between the Soviets and US a few times in the Black Sea, and China (of course) has rammed some of it's neighbors. It's a surprisingly common action, but it's not generally the earnest attempt to sink another ship for the same reasons they aren't just shooting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4jQhnXrWbg
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
That's more rubbin's racin' type stuff, as you said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:thanks for posting the loving dumbest quote of all time I think the Patton quote about fixed fortifications is even dumber considering he ended up breaking his dick over the fortifications at Metz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
How effective were fortifications on the Eastern Front? Did the Germans build any on territories they occupied?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think the Patton quote about fixed fortifications is even dumber considering he ended up breaking his dick over the fortifications at Metz. it's because 3d Army wasn't wearing their ties properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How effective were fortifications on the Eastern Front? Did the Germans build any on territories they occupied? They fortified a bunch of towns and then ordered troops to defend them to the death, the Soviets just bypassed them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How effective were fortifications on the Eastern Front? Did the Germans build any on territories they occupied? Yup. Sinyavino heights is the one shows up the most, since it was a big ol' hill in the middle of an impassable swamp. On one hand you can shoot everything from it, on the other hand you can't really send reinforcements once you're close to losing it. Some German commanders actually wanted to leave it and retreat to a more reliable line of defense for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
So I was watching some videos from "Military History Visualized" narrated by a German dude, I don't recall in particular if any of the ones I saw rang any alarm bells but of course his comments appear to be inundated by cancer. I linked Ensign Expendable blog and got this response: quote:(Previous Comment before I linked to the blog)  We appreciate you Ensign Expendable. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Anything historical on YouTube will have the worst comments you'll ever read. Thank gently caress for browser plug in's that just remove the whole feature entirely.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Link him to that article where some SS general admits that German reports were bullshit and everyone overinflated enemy forces in order to get more supplies, plus then overinflated enemy casualties to get awards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
how fuckin dumb do you have to be to not acknowledge that Rokossovsky was amazing
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Link him to that article where some SS general admits that German reports were bullshit and everyone overinflated enemy forces in order to get more supplies, plus then overinflated enemy casualties to get awards. My googlefu is failing me, do you have any specifics?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:how fuckin dumb do you have to be to not acknowledge that Rokossovsky was amazing Well if you start from the viewpoint of a post-Soviet Polish Nationalist...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:how fuckin dumb do you have to be to not acknowledge that Rokossovsky was amazing That's not a point of view you want to raise around Poles in general, considering his post-war "accomplishments".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:That's not a point of view you want to raise around Poles in general, considering his post-war "accomplishments". you can't just ignore his accomplishments as a Soviet general during the GPW when you are ranking Soviet generals edit: Well, you can, if you are a member of the Youtube Commentariat I guess, but that just casts aspersions on all of your opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:My googlefu is failing me, do you have any specifics? http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2016/06/cheating-at-statistics-across-front.html Plus here's something I had kicking around that's relevant: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2016/10/on-german-losses.html And there's my favourite the Wehrmacht's own intelligence service on the Eastern Front, Fremde Heere Ost, regularly discounted German army tank kill claims by thirty to fifty percent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
I finally finished Schwerpunkt and while most of it made me glaze over, what stuck with me 1) was how absurdly better the Wehrmacht was operationally that first year to inflict these insane loss ratios, and 2) how absurdly better Soviet industrial planning was to still have the numerical advantage by the end of it. Those first months are just an insane catastrophe and even knowing how it ends I was getting nervous. Anyway, question time- how much of Germany's relatively anemic tank production was due to their shittier factories (I watched the Parshall lecture) and how much was bad decisions/prioritization made after Barbarossa had started? Were they restrained by raw materials in some way that would have prevented them from ramping up tank production even if they had unfucked themselves and standardized more like the Allies did? It seems like being even halfway to Soviet efficiency would have been enough to make the difference during 1942 while the USSR was still pissing away entire tank armies with alarming regularity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Anyway, question time- how much of Germany's relatively anemic tank production was due to their shittier factories (I watched the Parshall lecture) and how much was bad decisions/prioritization made after Barbarossa had started? Were they restrained by raw materials in some way that would have prevented them from ramping up tank production even if they had unfucked themselves and standardized more like the Allies did? It seems like being even halfway to Soviet efficiency would have been enough to make the difference during 1942 while the USSR was still pissing away entire tank armies with alarming regularity. Yes, the German economy was absolutely stretched to its limits during WWII, particularly in terms of labour and steel. The intention was the German armaments production would peak by 1939 and would begin to drop off afterwards - as it happened the Germans managed to sustain production via confiscating assets from Poland, France and then the USSR, but once things started to go really south they could not keep up with allied production. Not having a crazy Nazi economy and having sensibly laid out tank factories & designs would probably have helped but ultimately they were constrained by what they could input into their industrial system. An important point to note is that the Nazis were very reluctant to impose much hardship on their population, particularly in terms of food shortages, thanks to the collective experience of starvation in WWI. Meanwhile the USSR had no qualms about near starving its citizens to death in order to free up materials for the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Actually, German government also had no qualms about starving the Soviet citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Actually, German government also had no qualms about starving the Soviet citizens.  P-Mack posted:I finally finished Schwerpunkt and while most of it made me glaze over, what stuck with me 1) was how absurdly better the Wehrmacht was operationally that first year to inflict these insane loss ratios, and 2) how absurdly better Soviet industrial planning was to still have the numerical advantage by the end of it. Those first months are just an insane catastrophe and even knowing how it ends I was getting nervous. The Germans did really start ramping production in 1942, this was the expansion they planned in 1939/40 and started executing actually coming on line after the 2 year lag, the real problem they had is that right in the middle of their expansion they were knocked flat on their rear end by the bombing of the Ruhr and the intensified bombing of all German industrial production that just stifled their growth hard.  For them to have any production any earlier they would havec had to start fully expanding in the years before the war, and they didn't have the money or economic capability to do that any more than they did, they were riding their ability to expand as hard as they could, they got a lot of their increased capability in the early war by plundering the conquered countries of men and machines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:
I've heard this argument about strategic bombing but I'm not overall persuaded. Look at the US production over this period: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/img/BigL-p59.jpg Again you have the same pattern of rapid growth for 1-2 years, then a plateau. I think it's more likely that there was slack in the system that Speer could take up. I can believe that strategic bombing did damage German industry but the idea that it would have grown at 5% per month indefinitely without it just isn't credible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Isn't the real question with Germany access to resources?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:you can't just ignore his accomplishments as a Soviet general during the GPW when you are ranking Soviet generals I am not objecting to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:01
|
|