|
Ensign Expendable posted:The graphic from Wikipedia ignores how they died. A Soviet soldier that dies as a POW counts as dead, whereas a German soldier that's still removed from fighting by capture but survives captivity does not. Why do you not appreciate wehrmacht kdr padding?
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
And I mean, the German soldier still didn't actually die in that case did they? I think I agree the graphic isn't something to be basing an argument off of but I don't think including German soldiers who didn't die in a graphic of war dead is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And I mean, the German soldier still didn't actually die in that case did they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well, while this is true, it wasn't just prewar Germany (a much larger Germany than today, don't forget - it included Austria, western Poland, the Czech Republic, etc), but also occupied France, Belgium, Denmark, etc, plus co-belligerants such as Italy and Hungary and even volunteers from Spain. The Soviet Union was fighting essentially the rest of Europe (granted, a lot of it not exactly fully on-board with the plan) minus the UK and Ireland. It's not quite as one-sided as you might think. Doesn't the fact that some of those countries are occupied imply it's even worse for Germany? Now you're using manpower and resources to occupy, conduct anti partisan duties, etc rather than using them against the SU. My understanding on Spanish volunteers is that they are essentially a drop in the bucket numbers-wise
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:They most likely wouldn't have steamrolled western Europe either, even without nukes in the picture. Yes, the Soviets had probably the largest and most hardened land army of the time, but they had pretty much tapped out both their industrial capacity and manpower. If the Soviets decided they wanted a war with the western Allies they probably could have wrecked the border units initially, but the Allies (especially the US) had piles of unused manpower and economies still not completely converted to a war focus that could easily pick up the slack. Plus, the Soviet Union had basically no navy or strategic air force so goodbye any industry in range of B-29's or whatever you have to import over water. afaik the US is one story, but the UK had been short on manpower since 1944 Tevery Best posted:I'm not sure what you're getting at with kooky steppe outfits? But Sarmatism was a cultural current that permeated most of the Polish noble society in the 17th century, and the Hussars were naturally some of the wealthiest combatants around (look, when your equipment has to involve a leopard skin, it gets pricy). Slightly poorer nobles became (towarzysze) pancerni, who were a bit less heavily (and expensively) equipped, and, depending on the situation, either fulfilled similar battlefield purposes to the Hussars or acted as support for them. I forgot to respond to you! Sarmatism is very striking to me because it seems like such a divergent cultural trend in comparison to the rest of Europe at the time. The "kooky steppe outfits" is something I remember from an essay on Polish nobility that basically railed on them for dressing "in the manner of tartars", it was all very Orientalist. I'm not going to defend that view, but I'm also somebody brought up in a very Western Europe-centric viewpoint, so I still don't understand how Sarmartism really manifested as a Polish idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Steppe Nomads are cool as hell that's why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Doesn't the fact that some of those countries are occupied imply it's even worse for Germany? Now you're using manpower and resources to occupy, conduct anti partisan duties, etc rather than using them against the SU. My understanding on Spanish volunteers is that they are essentially a drop in the bucket numbers-wise On the other hand you have volunteers for the various non-German SS units and decidedly non-volunteer slave labour to produce munitions (plus all the gear those countries already had pre-occupation e.g. the Czech tanks that were the basis of the Hetzer), and if you're talking about e.g. Denmark the resources you expend on occupation are fairly small and you need dudes there in any case to defend against what would eventually be D-Day. On the whole I suspect Germany gained more than it lost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:45
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Steppe Nomads are cool as hell that's why. Well, except when they are doing pogroms because they feel like it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:Anyone know anything about Operation Barras? I just came across it, and it sounds incredible that one squadron of the SAS could kill or capture a majority of militia members! For something truly mad look at things like the Siege of Jadotville(now showing on Netflix!) or Zero Six Bravo and you'll see "holy poo poo" levels of force disparity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Whenever people express wonder at the effectiveness of trained troops against enthusiastic amateurs I would probably just invoke the thought experiment of how many abu hajaars it would take to win a war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Whenever people express wonder at the effectiveness of trained troops against enthusiastic amateurs I would probably just invoke the thought experiment of how many abu hajaars it would take to win a war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Whenever people express wonder at the effectiveness of trained troops against enthusiastic amateurs I would probably just invoke the thought experiment of how many abu hajaars it would take to win a war. hadn't seen that vid before, but it was really interesting HEY GAL posted:the thing about france was that for a while, they had more abu hajaars than you had dudes who knew what they were doing when was this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:"The bulk of the fighting " is a bit of a nebulous concept, but they did do the bulk of the dying, by far, as illustrated by this graphic from wikipedia. They also did the bulk of the killing, I think. Glantz: quote:Only China, which suffered almost continuous Japanese attack from 1931 onward, matched the level of Soviet suffering and effort. In military terms, moreover, the Chinese participation in the war was almost insignificant in comparison with that of the Soviets, who were constantly engaged and absorbed more than half of all German forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
I know that most of the Germans were killed by the Russians, I posted that mainly because Russia has this massive chunk, whereas the rest of the allied powers (excluding the chinas) barely register in comparison. I suppose only counting military deaths also skews things by leaving out a lot of the death toll from the bombings. There's a really good infographic youtube video where they break down all the deaths of World War 2, and it all seems pretty straightforward, a lot of people died in the first part of the war, but then it pans over to the bar for Russia and starts showing German and Russian deaths go up, and up, and up...really puts things into a horrifying perspective.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWUaDMuMATM
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:"The bulk of the fighting " is a bit of a nebulous concept, but they did do the bulk of the dying, by far, as illustrated by this graphic from wikipedia. I have this weird opinion that graphs/charts/whatever showing military casualties in WW2 (and, for that matter, WW1) should never be shown without also showing civilian casualties graphs/charts/whatever. I mean, Poland. Just... Poland...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Lol at the bombings skewing things for Germany if you include civilians. Go look up soviet civilian deaths
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Lol at the bombings skewing things for Germany if you include civilians. Aren't the bombings actually really small on the grand scale of things, compared to stuff like famine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:On the other hand you have volunteers for the various non-German SS units and decidedly non-volunteer slave labour to produce munitions (plus all the gear those countries already had pre-occupation e.g. the Czech tanks that were the basis of the Hetzer), and if you're talking about e.g. Denmark the resources you expend on occupation are fairly small and you need dudes there in any case to defend against what would eventually be D-Day. On the whole I suspect Germany gained more than it lost. Indeed the only reason the German logistical train worked at all approaching well in 1941 was the vast amount of lorries, fuel, rolling stock, horses and other miscellaneous items they nicked from occupied Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Aren't the bombings actually really small on the grand scale of things, compared to stuff like famine? Yeah. I mean, plenty were killed but it was on the order of 250,000-500,000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:I'm trying to build up my Eastern Front library for grad school and, uh, is there a way to get Franz Halder's diary that isn't 50 bucks or more? poo poo seems more rare and expensive than I thought it would be. Still catching up with the thread but: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=Franz+Halder Ebook versions (Part 1 and Part 2) for like... 15$ Paperback versions might run you about 40$
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Welp: Uh quote:Sirs: uuuhh quote:Centaur Steaks Yeah, that might tempt the most ticklish palates (and none others).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
And now I know the wine match for horsemeat. Didn't expect it to be chianti but the more you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:And now I know the wine match for horsemeat. Didn't expect it to be chianti but the more you know. If you're looking for a centaur offer on the menu to go with the chianti, I'd suggest eating the liver and some fava beans to go with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Given that when was the last time a head of state actually took field command of his army? N3 was considered pretty wacky for doing it when he did and just about everyone saw it as him trying to emulate his more famous namesake. Haile Selassie commanded Ethiopian forces personally against the Italians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
I've got some important questions about trenches. They're neat, but they also look really horrifying to have to live in and I'm not quite sure how they work.  I understand that holes dug into the water table will quickly fill with water, and you have to fortify the back to keep the stupid fuckers in the rear trench from shooting you in the back of the head, but why did they build their trenches exactly this way? How does it drain? What's that bell for? How would you cook your horsemeat in a trench?  How much protection do these things really provide?  Why does the smug German ghost have a much nicer trench?  What happens if someone poops in the trench?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:What happens if someone poops in the trench? Chances are there's a specific part of the trench for pooping lest you end up with everyone in the trench pooping until they drop dead from dehydration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Why does the smug German ghost have a much nicer trench? Because he's overcome with defeatism! Digging in is for pussies, now come on lads one more assault and then we can go home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
What was the strategic significance of the Khe Sanh combat base? Why was LBJ and Westmoreland even willing to consider the use of nuclear weapons just to protect this place?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:That's pretty much a standard regular/irregular force balance TBH. If anything the British over-committed forces to it putting things on weirdly almost numerically even footing and the skill and equipment disparity resulting in the casualty difference. There was basically a full company of regulars committed to the rescue, with SAS actually carrying it out while the majority of the West Side Boys were distracted by a whole pile of angry Paras shooting poo poo up. Yeah, reading up on it, I see that they used quite a bit more manpower than I originally thought. Mea culpa! Cool! I'll check them out. OwlFancier posted:Whenever people express wonder at the effectiveness of trained troops against enthusiastic amateurs I would probably just invoke the thought experiment of how many abu hajaars it would take to win a war. Well, the Westside Boys weren't exactly 'amateurs'. They were irregulars, sure, but some of them had been fighting in the civil war for 9 years at that point. Apparently they were heavily into drugs, and tricked into revealing the location of their hideout by Royal Signals, but one has to assume they knew how to fight. All forces have their Abu Hajaars, but surely not that many. gradenko_2000 posted:What was the strategic significance of the Khe Sanh combat base? Why was LBJ and Westmoreland even willing to consider the use of nuclear weapons just to protect this place? It was simply expertly placed: It protected Route 9, which would be the place to win/lose the war if North Korean armor came knocking; provided entrance into Laos, was a strategically important airstrip, and also a perfect staging area for ground operations into the trail. Tias fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
doble postin
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Trenches! Trenches are awesome. And offer almost complete protection to shrapnel shells, which is why they are super narrow. The shell has to land in the trench to hurt people. Same reason the trenches zig/zag, so if a shell does land in a trench it can only hurt people in that particular zig, or zag. When the armies started digging, everyone pretty much exclusively had shrapnel shells so trenches were super effective. When everyone realised that trenches were a thing, everyone started building as much heavy artillery as they could and the high explosive shells required. With enough arty and shells, any wwi trench could be destroyed. Building the arty and the shells was the issue and took them years to gear up. Water table is an issue. And areas with high water tables, earthworks were built "up" so they didnt have to dig as far down. Also arty bombardment wrecks the drainage of any area, badly. Germans had much better trenches largely a result of different doctrine. Their assault on france failed and then chose to direct their full fury against the russians. They were there to stay, for years, and they built their trenches accordingly. Deep bunkers too and some officers quarters were even carpeted. The french on the other hand refused to tolerate the germans occupying large sections of the country and viewed trenches as very temporary constructs, until the germans could be evicted. And were built accordingly. British trenches was something that existed between these two extremes. Trenches were pretty poo poo to be in , particularly french trenches. The brits recognized this and very quickly rotated men in and out, continously. Such that any one man would only generally be in the front line, 2/3 days each week. The french were very slow to develop this type of rotation. Many factors but their poo poo trenches and poor rotation contributed to their mutinies. More on hygiene later , and poetry!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
The Germans also tended to give up a little territory in order to build their trenches on better terrain, on hills and so forth. Giving them better drainage and allowing them to look into their enemies trenches. Defecation was very serious business, particularly in trenches. If I recall correctly, the British (Most of my reading just happened to be form the British perspective) built two types of latrines or "long drops". A shallower one, which would fill up and then closed. And apparently you can dig a deeper one, such that the exreta would seep into the ground at a rate greater than it would fill up and would last. Again apparently, these things could be exploded by artillery. Churchill actually had a not awful idea, identifying that there were more sailors than they needed and they were desperately short on infantrymen. So they decided to form an infantry division from sailors, the 63rd Royal Naval Division. Apparently the type of discipline between the navy and the army were not quiet the same, especially regarding defecation. When a particular Major-General Cameron Shute took command of the division, was apparently appalled at the "hygiene practices of the division" and tried to fix it and in doing so became extremely unpopular. Resulting in my opinion, one of the best works of literature, ever. "The General inspecting the trenches Exclaimed with a horrified shout "I refuse to command a division Which leaves its excreta about". But nobody took any notice No one was prepared to refute, That the presence of poo poo was congenial Compared to the presence of Shute. And certain responsible critics Made haste to reply to his words Observing that his staff advisors Consisted entirely of turds. For poo poo may be shot at odd corners And paper supplied there to suit, But a poo poo would be shot without mourners If somebody shot that poo poo Shute." Written by Sub-Lieutenant A. P. Herbert. No idea how that effected their relationship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:For poo poo may be shot at odd corners World War I poetry has redeemed itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Same reason the trenches zig/zag, so if a shell does land in a trench it can only hurt people in that particular zig, or zag. That's not the only reason. If a Bad Guy gets in your trench with an automatic weapon, you don't want him to be able to shoot as far as he can see along the trench in both directions. Zigzagging gives you more cover when you're being assaulted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That's not the only reason. If a Bad Guy gets in your trench with an automatic weapon, you don't want him to be able to shoot as far as he can see along the trench in both directions. Zigzagging gives you more cover when you're being assaulted. Man portable automatic weapons were not relevant when trenches were first constructed with zigzags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:hadn't seen that vid before, but it was really interesting The French Revolutionary Wars showed that if you get enough Abu hajaars (pere jeans?) against an uncoordinated unmotivated enemy you can win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
So basically the french were good at herding abu hajaars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
JcDent posted:So basically the french were good at herding abu hajaars. Key is having a few important people who aren't Abu hajaars who can do the herding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:32
|
|