|
1. Wishing, or hoping, that an entire major country suddenly loses/peaces out simply because their Air Force gets mauled doesn't solve the issue at hand IE: Germans win WW2. 2. Very GBH territory, more time would've given the Russians a better chance at digging it and setting up their forward lines. Would this have backfired in the end?  3. If Hitler wasn't pleased with it, why did he declare war on the US? 4. If they could have rebuilt all those transportation planes, why didn't they? 5. Natural disasters? The hell? 6. Controlling most of Europe =/= winning WW2. Ask Us About Military History Mk III: Yugoslavia And The 10 Plagues Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 19, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
In reply to the hobo (or more like a well-off retired insurance adjuster) -Dude is right, in so far as Britan could have been neutralized as an opponent to the Nazis. It is possible with some changes on the Nazi side they could have won the battle of the Atlantic; and it's also possible given some changes that the Nazis could have 1) neutralized Britain's air force and then 2) crippled British industry. While invasion and conquest is all black gay hitler, it is possible for Germany to have done these things. What would have happened next, who's to say? But Britain was a democracy, and it's possible some sort of peace government could have been elected in the face of these failures. -He doesn't really understand that Hitler actually was extremely concerned about the United States from the start; and as a WW1 vet remembered keenly how Britain and France benefited first from being able to trade with the US, and the decisive role America's deceleration of war had on WW1. In a very real sense, the whole Greater German Reich Hitler was wistfully dreaming of carving out of the backs of the untermenchen of eastern Europe was a project to turn Germany as strong as the US. Hitler declared war because he thought war with the US was in the long term inevitable, and there was no advantage to delaying the inevitable. -All else is madness Like why the gently caress would anybody say " And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing." Also what is his basic point, anyway? That at the peak of German success pre-Barbarossa, Germany had "almost" won World War 2, and they would have won it too, if not for those meddling kids? vv awesome Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
 well then sign me the gently caress up I'll fly that loving amazing thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
CoffeeBooze posted:Are you sure it's not OSC himself? Certainly sounds like him and he was a bit of a Hitler fan. No, and (Disclosure) I am acquaintances with his son Geoffrey Card and corresponded with OSC himself, OSC doesn't sock puppet because really if you've read his editorials he certainly doesn't feel any need to hide behind a persona if he thinks he's right. Even if he kinda sorta invented the idea of it... While I could technically defend the idea of that essay as allowable under The Death of the Author it's a huge stretch and applicability gets your far enough to say "Well based on the events on the book it could serve as a metaphor for Hitler trying to seek redemption for what he did." Going a step further and going "And OSC totally believes this and is a Hitler apologist." (I haven't read that essay in a decade and I don't intend to read it again now) isn't remotely reasonable. I also don't think anyone who wants themselves to either become an author or wants to encourage other people to become authors would want to encourage that line of thinking. quote:Like why the gently caress would anybody say " And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing." Also what is his basic point, anyway? That at the peak of German success pre-Barbarossa, Germany had "almost" won World War 2, and they would have won it too, if not for those meddling kids? (Paraphrasing) His original comment was that the Germans were so close to winning WWII that it is shocking, shocking he claims that they lost because they held so many advantages; and they would have won if they had won a few battles if not for Hitler; so he's definitely contradicting himself; that comment was from a digression where he claimed German civilization was super awesome and stuff but even Hitler happened to them and thus Trump can happen to us (Stopped Clocks.txt). Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I'm really sad that RADAR was invented if only because it makes dazzle camo relatively superfluous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
I don't think Dazzle camo ever really worked. People for some reason just thought it might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
And the longer people entertained that delusion the better the world would be  Dazzle camo is the pre-industrial uniform of the vehicular combat world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't think Dazzle camo ever really worked. People for some reason just thought it might be a good idea. It was pretty effective with surface vessels. It's not about hiding the object as much as it is making it a royal pain in the rear end to accurately gauge heading and speed. If you're trying to shoot at moving ships at any kind of range that is really, REALLY important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It was pretty effective with surface vessels. It's not about hiding the object as much as it is making it a royal pain in the rear end to accurately gauge heading and speed. If you're trying to shoot at moving ships at any kind of range that is really, REALLY important. That's the theory but from the exhibition I went to recently on the practice apparently the Royal Navy did a study and found no evidence it helped. Of course museum exhibitions aren't the most credible things but I haven't seen much to contradict that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's the theory but from the exhibition I went to recently on the practice apparently the Royal Navy did a study and found no evidence it helped. Of course museum exhibitions aren't the most credible things but I haven't seen much to contradict that. But how would you know if it did work? The ships made it safely home 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Here's an example that illustrates the idea pretty well: Just look at the drat thing. You can barely even tell if it's one ship or several, let alone which direction it's pointing or what particular class it is. Now, this just a very small ship compared to cruisers or battleships, but the same principle still applies. Especially if you imagine trying to look at it through a pair of smudged binoculars at distances of dozens of kilometers, where it's just a small speck at the horizon, possibly in choppy weather.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Here's an example that illustrates the idea pretty well: Yeah, that's the idea, but real life isn't in black and white, and at long distances, whatever the paintjob is, you just see the silhouette. Or a dot. A plain gray paintwork that matches the contrast of the background would be much more effective. But like I said, this is mostly speculative. As I understand it, there is really no evidence that it was significantly effective, and it was a lot of work. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:12
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If the Germans were really smart they wouldn't have fell for the Calais deception His sources are really just bits of US history he cut out from the back of old sugar packets.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say that dazzle camo didn't work. While the principle was well known, no one trusted it enough to use it in war.Perestroika posted:Here's an example that illustrates the idea pretty well: It's not going to turn into some eye-blinding Moiré-pattern monster when viewed through a stereoscopic rangefinder. Especially in choppy weather - a still close-up photograph might fool you, but when you see it bouncing on waves in the distance I don't think you would have any doubts. edit: 
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:His sources are really just bits of US history he cut out from the back of old sugar packets. I get all my knowledge from Bazooka Joe comics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
With the wehraboos, do you not just think endless t34 photos with impact font this machine kills fascists emblazoned on them would do? This machine kills fascists This machine KILLS FASCISTS THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
lenoon posted:With the wehraboos, do you not just think endless t34 photos with impact font this machine kills fascists emblazoned on them would do? Why stop there when you could just alternate between every weapon of war used against them? M1 Garand, M4 Sherman, Lee-Enfield, etc etc etc. Don't show any planes though, we all know that no Nazis were ever in the Luftwaffe!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Why stop there when you could just alternate between every weapon of war used against them? Or the Afrika Korps! (Rommel was a huge furry though. Desert Fox? Yiff yiff, baby.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Or the Afrika Korps! uhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Or the Afrika Korps! Finally, one of my Let's Plays is relevant!  "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furry!" -Brought to us by Chitoryu12
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
lenoon posted:With the wehraboos, do you not just think endless t34 photos with impact font this machine kills fascists emblazoned on them would do? Inaccurate. Not everyone killed by a T-34 was a fascist, and most actual fascists died of other reasons than T-34. Eg. Adolf Hitler died of Walther PKK, Benito Mussolini died of MAS-38 and Hirohito of old age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Oh for gently caress's bleeding sake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
possibly the only decent subreddit, except of course this place
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Inaccurate. Not everyone killed by a T-34 was a fascist, and most actual fascists died of other reasons than T-34. Eg. Adolf Hitler died of Walther PKK, Benito Mussolini died of MAS-38 and Hirohito of old age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
 Do the same with the He-177 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
Still wrong unless you can determine the pilot's political affiliation!!! (obviously the plane is Nazi, but what of the pilot?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Still wrong unless you can determine the pilot's political affiliation!!! Are you telling me that any old German would be allowed inside a wonder weapon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
I think there was a quite famous test pilot that was really vocally nazi at the time and they died in a test crash so there should be at least one plane you can do that with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Are you telling me that any old German would be allowed inside a wonder weapon? Only the most gullible... oh, I get it!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only the most gullible... oh, I get it!!! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Howdy MilHist thread- An Italian language history of the WWI alpine campaign came up in this thread a few months back but I can't find the book's title. Did anyone keep it handy by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:* Literally 24 hours ago posted: I had a guy like that pop up on my blog. He starts off great - under the several thousand word long that rather conclusively (in my own opinion) shows that the strv 103 was not a tank destroyer, he goes quote:It is strange how logic is not used in the discussion. Then after an exhausting back and forth with him citing some dumb forum posts by people whose only experience with the subject seems to be History Channel as facts, he goes on with claiming that my archive sources simply do not count as facts for some reason (probably because they're in a language he doesn't read and are too long and boring anyway), and that it is actually tank destroyer because he has experience with wargames: quote:And the wargames, as far as modeling reality, do not lie. The players find every fault in every tank. Also every strong point. If you know anything about marketing then you know the defense forces are also doing a lot of it. It just enhances their total output. The wargames he is citing? quote:The ones I think are applicable in this case are World of Tanks, War Thunder for their detailed damage models quote:I forgot Armored Warfare Yes, people, the Swedish army was wrong to use the strv 103 as a tank. World of Tanks proves it.  source if you care, I just stopped responding to him because 
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Well poo poo, crank up the time machine 'cause my 1500 hours in Shogun 2 (and at least as many in Shogun 1) means I can zip back and Sun Tsu the gently caress outta some Sengoku! so stoked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Now I keep imagining there is this weird psuedo war gaming university that teaches THE TRUE HISTORY through a cultural medium of entertainment.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
I remember getting really shirty with some people in here who were convinced that Civilization was a great way to learn about history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
I think it's important to not undervalue the impact games (and movies, TV etc) can have on people's perceptions of history. People arguing that misrepresenting history in them doesn't matter is pretty shortsighted.TheFluff posted:if you care, I just stopped responding to him because Jesus christ, he's still going. His last post was barely more than a week ago even though nobody's responded to him in more than a month. I have to admit, occasionally I get annoyed by the total derision that this thread generally has for the Werhmracht (among others), it feels kind of one sided. But then reading poo poo like that guy's comments, or Raenir Salazar's argument with that dude- now I understand. This stuff infests these kinds of WW2 discussions pretty much everywhere on the internet, doesn't it? Whereas I literally only ever read about that in this thread... I guess I should get some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
I got legit mad at the Civ 6 entry on the Redcoat unit, might as well call him RED ENGLISH SOLDIER GUY. War gaming is good for pointing people to learn the actual facts now. hell post Napoleonic Prussian officers used it to some extent as recreation. Shame lovely close minded people also cling onto it incorrectly as a "source" in their weird thinking rather than facts but well people suck.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Yeah games are good, and often get you involved, interested, and point you down a rabbit hole of discovery and searching. The basic example for instance is hey, if you have Excalibur in your game as a weapon, most people know King Arthur, so if you have that, then maybe they look at this other legendary weapon, like Gae Bolg and decide that IT must also have a legendary history and go check it out and WHOOPS suddenly you've read the entire Ulster Cycle where has my time gone~. Victoria II is interesting in that the way it fails to work as a market simulator is actually probably just as interested and informative if not moreso than it's intended purpose as a 19th century European history simulator sandbox thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:
Exactly this. It's great as an inspiration to learn about the subject the problem is idiots who take a game as s 1:1 representation of reality. See also: historical drama
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 07:37
|
|