|
The Lone Badger posted:I have read (can't verify) that the reason the Japanese surrendered after Nagasaki rather than after Hiroshima is that Little Boy was a uranium-based weapon, and Fat Man was plutonium-based. Building a uranium bomb takes ages, so that would mean the Americans would have very few of them. Once you can build plutonium bombs however you can churn them out, so examining the fallout from Fat Man would show that there are a lot more on the way. I'd think they surrendered because they just had two bombs wipe out two cities one after the other. Would the 1945 Japanese even have the atomic knowledge to analyze the fallout and determine the length of time building the bombs took?
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I'd think they surrendered because they just had two bombs wipe out two cities one after the other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Thump! posted:lol If I had to choose between making a d-day style opposed landing or walking through an area 48 hours after Fat Man was dropped I would choose the latter every time. People kept living and working in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from when the bombs were dropped up until the present day. So while the radiation isn't great it's not like it was a death sentence, especially if you are only there for a brief time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Just read the link someone posted about the Little Land landings. Your main force gets delayed because nobody knows how to embark, then gets delayed again because nobody took sea into account, the commander refuses to delay artillery and air support because lol Soviets, a third of tanks are lost on the water and only about 30 guys make it back to lines. I looked little land landings on google and got a bunch of conspiracy poo poo. zoux posted:It's like when I see a 90 year old man smoking a cigarette and think "Why did I quit again?" This is a trick, he's actually 40. Milo and POTUS fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Most of the residual radiation would be gone two days later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Most of the residual radiation would be gone two days later. Well, that makes it all better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Well, yeah, it doesn't seem like the rescue workers at Hiroshima or Nagasaki were that affected, and they sure as gently caress didn't wait 48 hours before going in. Then again, maybe the bombs would be different and salt the earth or whatever. ...wait, is there a possibility to drop gas on Normandy before the landings in Hearts of Iron?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:am i the only poster in this thread who doesn't really care what whereaboos think No, but my disdain is probably broader than yours
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:am i the only poster in this thread who doesn't really care what whereaboos think Nope!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
IIRC a comparatively recent study suggested that most of the dosage at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from being exposed directly to the emissions from the detonation rather than any exposure to fallout/rain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27223827 FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
OK, best tank destroyer (that wasn't StuG): which one and why - go!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, best tank destroyer (that wasn't StuG): which one and why - go! Wow hang on are we counting all assault guns because then it's clearly the SU-76 because it did exactly what the Soviets needed it to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
ISU-152 Who the gently caress needs armour piercing rounds when you've got 152mm HE ones
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Thump! posted:lol I kind of doubt this considering there would have been a lot of Allied casualties from enemy fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, best tank destroyer (that wasn't StuG): which one and why - go! Universal carrier with the Boys ATR
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
Jagdpanzer 38t, based on looks alone. It looks so cute and menacing at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
So long as you aren't the poor buggers stuck in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Can anyone point me towards reading about Soviet doctrine and tactics in WW2? It is very hard to find anything in English that isn't full of Asiatic hordes, human wave attacks, suicide mineclearing  , 2guys1rifle and other nonsense.I guess it's hardly surprising, considering the primary sources are all in Russian and most of them were unavailable until the end of the cold war, while the Germans just couldn't stop running their loving mouth. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:So long as you aren't the poor buggers stuck in it. So what was the most comfortable tank? Sherman?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:OK, best tank destroyer (that wasn't StuG): which one and why - go! Dismounted infantry with an ATGM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:So long as you aren't the poor buggers stuck in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Can anyone point me towards reading about Soviet doctrine and tactics in WW2? It is very hard to find anything in English that isn't full of Asiatic hordes, human wave attacks, suicide mineclearing 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Can anyone point me towards reading about Soviet doctrine and tactics in WW2? It is very hard to find anything in English that isn't full of Asiatic hordes, human wave attacks, suicide mineclearing Long story short, the (very successful) final development in Russian Military Tactics was to advance on a broad front and find weaknesses, then use your reserves to punch through those weaknesses rather than reinforce difficult zones. They also practiced large-scale maneuver such that whole battalions could wheel about to push through weaknesses in the enemy line. At least that's what I recall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
GotLag posted:So what was the most comfortable tank? Sherman? The only time I've heard the creature comforts of the Sherman described was by a Russian who heaped praise on it. On the other hand, he was used to early model T-34s, which coloured his perception just a little. One of the things that he mentioned was that the driver's seat was padded, which he considered a luxury - Giving some idea of what a miserable shitcan the T-34 was when it comes to crew comfort. The most comfortable WW2 era tanks were probably the German big cats, simply because they had a lot of room for the crew, comparatively speaking. HEY GAIL posted:David Glantz should set you up, his books are good and EXHAUSTIVELY informative Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Anybody have any suggestions for pre-colonial sub-Saharan African military history? UNCG has a copy of http://www.worldcat.org/title/african-military-history/oclc/988079615, but that's about all I can find. Bonus points for anything focusing on Zimbabwe before the British showed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
I know that the US tries to transport its Abrams tanks on trucks when it's not a combat environment to save on wear-and-tear on the tank by making it drive itself. Was that a thing that was done in WW2? Further, even if it was, the Panzers at the tip of the spear at Barbarossa wouldn't have been able to do that, right? When the historical account says that so-and-so division drove 50, 60, 80, 100+ kilometers east in a matter of days, it did so using its tracks, right? Finally, reliability and drivetrain (?) lifetime and engine lifetime was a thing insofar as you'd sometimes have situations where tanks with bad reliability would be deployed some distance away from the FEBA, need to drive themselves there, and then you'd have only half your force or less by the time they got there, right? I think I've read accounts of this happening to, among other forces, early Soviet counter-attacks. C.M. Kruger posted:But remember: the "real" reason Japan surrendered was because they were scared of a Soviet amphibious invasion. I don't think the argument is that the Soviets would have amphibiously invaded Japan so much as the Soviet declaration of war meant that the Soviets would no longer be a third-party mediator between the US and Japan, and the succeeding conquest of Manchuria meant that there wasn't really anything left for the Japanese to try and bargain to keep as part of a negotiated peace treaty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:The most comfortable WW2 era tanks were probably the German big cats, simply because they had a lot of room for the crew, comparatively speaking. An actual tanker would beg to differ (with the Panther, at least) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKKktWu6Rh0 My favourite part is the "balance the machine gun by resting it on the radio operator's head"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Can anyone point me towards reading about Soviet doctrine and tactics in WW2? It is very hard to find anything in English that isn't full of Asiatic hordes, human wave attacks, suicide mineclearing Ensign Expendable is going to sneer at me for this but Robert Forczyk's Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front books are a good starter for 10. It's pop history so you get what you pay for, but he does a really good job of explaining a) what combined arms warfare is (and what it isn't) b) the material and personnel problems that were the drivers of the Red Army's evolution through WW2. The problem with this topic is that there's a huge gulf between doctrine (which by 1941 had pretty much come back to 'deep operations') and practice. It's also important to consider that there's a lot of people just loving up and diverging from doctrine, from Rzhev failing due to poor preparation to Zhukov gratuitously using penal battalions to clear assault channels up the Zeelow heights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the US tries to transport its Abrams tanks on trucks when it's not a combat environment to save on wear-and-tear on the tank by making it drive itself. The Soviets did amphibiously invade Japan, afterwards they just never left the part they invaded and it became part of the Soviet Union and later Russia so everyone (except the japanese) have just forgotten about it now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the US tries to transport its Abrams tanks on trucks when it's not a combat environment to save on wear-and-tear on the tank by making it drive itself. did someone say DRAGON WAGON!??! I know the Germans had a heavy halftrack of some sort but the industrial might to build massive tank hauling trucks was really in America's wheelhouse. Everyone else did it mainly by rail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
GotLag posted:So what was the most comfortable tank? Sherman? Anecdotally the ISU152 (if you count SPGs) was really nice to sleep on/in. Still surely it has to be the Centurion, because of the fabled "Vessel Boiling Electric". Comedy answer: the Maus because you never have to leave home base
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the US tries to transport its Abrams tanks on trucks when it's not a combat environment to save on wear-and-tear on the tank by making it drive itself. Typically, and wherever possible, nations on all sides would use boats/trains to transport tanks to and from the frontlines. Anything else was usually driven on/by the tank itself. The only exceptions would be tank recovery where you will have a loader truck/trailer combo load up a vehicle, but these, as far as I know, were not used to transport functional tanks around. As for question 2, yes. Some tanks used a separate set of tracks for travel rather than combat, but I believe that was a German-only thing, unless you count the T95 Tank Destroyer. Question 3, definitely! This was a problem for both the Russians and Germans, usually during the "Oh poo poo we need men and tanks here NOW!" periods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Transportation was notably a major problem for the Panther, since they had severe transmission issues. After the war, the French (Who used recovered Panthers after the war while they rebuilt their armored forces) infamously found that the final drive of the transmission would only last an average of 140 kilometers before breaking, which is practically nothing. In effect, this greatly restricted where and when the Panther could be deployed, since they would have to be transported by rail as close to the front as possible to prevent wear on the transmission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the US tries to transport its Abrams tanks on trucks when it's not a combat environment to save on wear-and-tear on the tank by making it drive itself. Very much so. The Germans relied rather heavily on train transportation for strategic maneuverability, especially with the 'Big Cats' due to their maintenance requirements and reliability concerns. If speed isn't important you can put any tank on any transport/trailer that can support it and tow it somewhere. Bigger vehicles need specialized ones, such as the trailer for the A39 Tortoise and the T28/T95 Super Heavy Tank
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
The Christie suspension was designed not just to make tank go fast on road but also to save wear and tear on the tracks. Rail was the best way to move heavy equipment and essentially still is provided that you have rail lines in the right places.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
And some jackass hasn't blown up your rail line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
And you aren't invading a country that uses a narrower rail gauge than you do, and the jackasses took all their trains with them when they retreated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:And you aren't invading a country that uses a narrower rail gauge than you do, and the jackasses took all their trains with them when they retreated. well really, who could have forseen this??
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:And you aren't invading a country that uses a narrower rail gauge than you do, and the jackasses took all their trains with them when they retreated. Actually they coudln't replace most of the trains they lost. The US Lend Lease was a major provider of trains and cars (for trains) for the Soviets. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Actually they lost most of their trains. The US Lend Lease was a major provider of trains and cars (for trains) for the Soviets. The Soviets started the war with approximately 28k locomotives and only received 2k from lend lease. The original poster is right in that the Germans only captured a tiny number of locomotives, the main constraint in the early years was the use of rail lines to evacuate industry. LL locomotives helped, but came fairly late. EDIT: According to official Russian histories they lost 15% of locomotives up to 1943. The 'majority of trains were destroyed' was from wartime German military intelligence estimates. And well, let's just say I wouldn't put a lot of trust in that. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:03
|
|