|
Tevery Best posted:What the hell happened on August 10 1941? The fabled Turn to the South, I guess. I assume this person is following off of Lost Victories? (Or am I confused and that's from another text?) Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:00 on May 10, 2017 |
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:28 |
|
Anticlimatic Insignificant Battles 
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
That... That's parody, right..?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Ach! If only Hitler was gay! And black to boot!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I feel like you don't need both halves of that graph, just one will do
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Anticlimatic Insignificant Battles Well, if you accept the premise that the war had already been decided by then...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I feel like you don't need both halves of that graph, just one will do It's trying way too hard to be Napolean's invasion of Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
I think Kursk was not "incidental?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:This may be a bit of an oddball question, but how well would individual US companies compare to total Japanese or German industrial output in 1939 and 1944? In other words, how many Fords or Willys-Overlands would you need to match the two foremost Axis powers? If you wanted a really easy way to express this, you could look to truck production
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, when the Germans were surrounded in the Demyansk pocket, they had actually a substantial store of captured soviet ammunition with them. As part of the air resupply, they flew in soviet weapons so as to use that store of ammunition.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
spectralent posted:That... That's parody, right..? This is what commonly passes for political science This is like some kind of cargo cult version of Bayesian inference
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
polisci rarely pays attention to history beyond the most superficial level, it's why most of us don't like them edit: on the other hand, they and the german department still read kant and hegel, so they're better than the philosophy department at least... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
pthighs posted:I think Kursk was not "incidental?" Incidental is a terrible word for it for sure, but Kursk never struck me as particularly decisive. By that point it's clear that the Soviets can't be defeated outright, meaning it's only a matter of time until Germany loses the war, even if they pull off a victory at Kursk (sidenote: holy hell was Op. Citadel a bad idea). I find it similar to the US offensive at Guadalcanal - the battle itself isn't decisive, because the US was always going to get stuck in somewhere, and then leverage their superior industrial capacity to an eventual victory.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
aphid_licker posted:I wanna see one where they accidentally head towards another on the same track and can't shoot because all the guns are on the sides and all go well this is awkward That's obviously when you have to engage multi track drifting at the previous set of points so you can get a perfectly angled armour slope as well as broadside gun positioning.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Seriously though, are there no memoirs of train battles? I'm really curious, now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
That graph is basically the author showing off that they are a baseball nerd by applying sabermetric analysis to...WWII? And yeah, you don't need both halves of the chart, it should be one line with one side winning at the top and the other side winning at the bottom like so: 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:It's trying way too hard to be Napolean's invasion of Russia. Not even that, since it sets the turning point not in Winter '41, but instead in Summer '41. You know, during the period where the Red Army very nearly collapsed. poo poo, even Summer '42 wasn't good by any means. There are good arguments for both Winter 1941 and 1942 to be the turning points in the war, but Summer 1941 is so far off the mark I have to assume the ones responsible for that graph are both high and drunk. Or at the very least far too ignorant about WWII to be allowed to make graphs about it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Really the big things I object to with that graph was 'Germans win WWII' being ever as likely as 0.99 like the creators put at the top end, and the invasion of Russia not corresponding to a significant drop in German chances.quote:Not even that, since it sets the turning point not in Winter '41, but instead in Summer '41. You know, during the period where the Red Army very nearly collapsed. poo poo, even Summer '42 wasn't good by any means. There are good arguments for both Winter 1941 and 1942 to be the turning points in the war, but Summer 1941 is so far off the mark I have to assume the ones responsible for that graph are both high and drunk. Like I said, it's the Turn to the South theory. "If Army Group Centre didn't get bogged down doing the encirclement in Kiev they'd totally have been in Moscow before Winter. The generals could have won, it's all Hitler's fault." Glantz has a good rebuttal for this position, but the theory is a fairly common one. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:12 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Like I said, it's the Turn to the South theory. "If Army Group Centre didn't get bogged down doing the encirclement in Kiev they'd totally have been in Moscow before Winter. The generals could have won, it's all Hitler's fault." Glantz has a good rebuttal for this position, but the theory is a fairly common one. I hate those kinds of counter-factuals. Also why are we never hearing the other side? Stalin could have been in Berlin by early September, if he hadn't been batshit crazy and hosed up the Red Army, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I hate those kinds of counter-factuals. Also why are we never hearing the other side? Stalin could have been in Berlin by early September, if he hadn't been batshit crazy and hosed up the Red Army, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:because this kind of analysis has always taken the russians for granted as fundamentally passive, more like a force of nature than human beings who make decisions. the agents are always the nazis. probably because americans still think of the eastern front from the nazi pov, despite everything Americans, Eastern Europeans, basically everyone outside of Russia... Especially New Zealanders!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:For people who have somehow mercifully avoided learning about the state of American politics, the president has a couple phrases that he uses habitually. When he says some variation of "nobody is talking about this" or "people don't ask the question" or "nobody knew that this was so complicated", he means that he personally was ignorant of something and he wants to normalize that. When the president says "a lot of people are saying" something or "many people believe" he means that he believes that thing and wants represent that belief as normal and widely held. requoting
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:the agents are always the nazis Well, they were Agents of Darkness... Ironically, the Soviet propaganda before the war often painted Germany the same way, just reversed: An uniform mass of fashism, waiting to take their old Doppeldecker-bombers to awkwardly stumble over the border, only to get wiped out be the technologically superior homo socialiens socialiens. OK, now that I think about it, it's not at all the same, besides being equally ridiculous. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Really the big things I object to with that graph was 'Germans win WWII' being ever as likely as 0.99 like the creators put at the top end, and the invasion of Russia not corresponding to a significant drop in German chances. I think the only response required to that one is just that you would have had Stalingrad, but a year earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I think the only response required to that one is just that you would have had Stalingrad, but a year earlier. Eh, I don't QUITE buy that one either. That's the core problem with counterfactuals: since none of it really happened it's all in the realm of possibility and you can argue for literally anything.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh, I don't QUITE buy that one either. Well, it's way more likely than 'a dialogue box pops up saying TOTAL AXIS VICTORY', like people seem to imagine happening the moment a German soldier steps foot in Moscow.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh, I don't QUITE buy that one either. Example: You end up with a massive soviet counter-offensive against the salient of AGC which probably does a fair bit of damage to the Germans but probably ends up the same way every Soviet offensive in 1941 goes - lots of dead Russians and nothing to show for it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, it's way more likely than 'a dialogue box pops up saying TOTAL AXIS VICTORY', like people seem to imagine happening the moment a German soldier steps foot in Moscow. Pft, everyone knows that event is bugged the gently caress out and you probably end up chasing random cavalry divisions all the way through central Asia before winning on victory points.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
I've always been under the impression that Nazi Germany was pretty much hosed when the US formally entered the war simply due to the massive industrial capabilities and population that could conceivably be put into battle. Like, sure, if they beat the Soviets maybe the war drags on longer, but it seems like the US + British Empire would still be enough to win assuming things in the Pacific go more-or-less the same as they actually did.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Example: You end up with a massive soviet counter-offensive against the salient of AGC which probably does a fair bit of damage to the Germans but probably ends up the same way every Soviet offensive in 1941 goes - lots of dead Russians and nothing to show for it. The Soviet counteroffensive after Typhoon *did* happen and was effective in 1941. Don't see a ton of reason why that would be hindered by having *more* Russians around to carry it out, and have the Germans have outrun their supply lines even further. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:26 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Soviet counteroffensive after Typhoon *did* happen and was effective in 1941. Don't see a ton of reason why that would be hindered by having *more* Russians around to carry it out, and have the Germans have outrun their supply lines even further. In this counterfactual it happens earlier, the Germans haven't gotten quite as far before it happens and are in better shape (having not fought the battles around Kiev). e: a major counter offensive against AGC in September because it's driving on Moscow is a different creature to the counter-offensive in December-January. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I've always been under the impression that Nazi Germany was pretty much hosed when the US formally entered the war simply due to the massive industrial capabilities and population that could conceivably be put into battle. Like, sure, if they beat the Soviets maybe the war drags on longer, but it seems like the US + British Empire would still be enough to win assuming things in the Pacific go more-or-less the same as they actually did. If the war drags on a few months longer Germany gets nuked… god drat that graph is dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In this counterfactual it happens earlier, the Germans haven't gotten quite as far before it happens and are in better shape (having not fought the battles around Kiev). You're assuming the soviets will take leave of their senses? Recall that Sorge only told the Russians about the Japan situation in mid September. I mean okay maybe I'm misunderstanding you and your real point is that counterfactuals are useless, then you might as well say 'yeah without the turn to the south actually army ground centre would have collectively tripped on their shoelaces and died' Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:01 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You're assuming the soviets will take leave of their senses? Recall that Sorge only told the Russians about the Japan situation in mid September. Well, yeah, if Stalin had been able to use console commands the world would have been very different.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:polisci rarely pays attention to history beyond the most superficial level, it's why most of us don't like them There are philosophy departments that *don't* read Kant and Hegel?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Crossposting from the PYF Awful Graphs thread: Another victory for the Hyperborean Finnish Empire.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, it's way more likely than 'a dialogue box pops up saying TOTAL AXIS VICTORY', like people seem to imagine happening the moment a German soldier steps foot in Moscow. Moving the capital was a unique ability of tsarist Russia, you can't do it if you're playing as soviets
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
So, dumb facebook debate had me wondering, how many wars have French fought( for ease, let's say post-ancien regime), and how many of them have they won? Roughly speaking.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You're assuming the soviets will take leave of their senses? Recall that Sorge only told the Russians about the Japan situation in mid September. I mean my point is 'there's always a ton of plausible counterfactuals', but I don't think 'Stalin panics because of the German advance and insists on immediate unplanned attacks by forces that look strong on paper but in reality are essentially combat ineffective' is that unrealistic because that's basically the story of 1941.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Those arguments are dumb because they seem to think the results of these conflicts can be tallied up sports style, rather than the real life consequences and developments that occur during and after said conflicts. To them it doesn't matter if one side a) had the tech edge or performed well during campaign that could have gone either way for both sides they just want raw data to say 'HEH I'M RIGHT'. Throw a book at them and tell them to read or GTFO.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:11
|
|