|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's not really poor management and more of an indication of how coalition warfare works in the modern world if you're mounting a surprise attack. The Germans couldn't just call back all their merchants in the summer of 1939 in order to minimize losses. To do so would be a giant loving red flag akin to mobilizing and sending the army to the frontier. If you wanted to get into a war with any kind of element of surprise in the 20th century you just had to assume that your merchant marine is going to be caught flat footed as a result.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Calling Germany's decision to go to war in 1939 a "surprise attack" is stretching the definition past the breaking point. The point is that you utterly tip your hand if you call back the merchants, and you can't even do that without way more lead time. You can't just send these guys a text message and get them back home in a week. edit: you seem to ascribe a bizarre amount of stuff to incompetence. Do you really think that no one in Germany realized, especially after WW1, that merchant ships would be caught out in a bad situation when war broke out? This is less about the mystical faith in the will than the realities of modern warfare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Calling Germany's decision to go to war in 1939 a "surprise attack" is stretching the definition past the breaking point. it was such a surprise that when the journalist who broke the story phoned the UK to tell them it was happening, they didn't believe her until she held the phone out the window so they could hear the tanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The point is that you utterly tip your hand if you call back the merchants, and you can't even do that without way more lead time. You can't just send these guys a text message and get them back home in a week. What was communication speeds like back then? Still mostly instantaneous via phone lines? or would recall orders sent to merchants be sent via telegram or mail or whatever communications apparatuses they had back then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Calling Germany's decision to go to war in 1939 a "surprise attack" is stretching the definition past the breaking point. even if everyone knows an operation is going to take place eventually it still makes sense to conceal d-day/h-hour as much as you possibly can
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in early 17th century Hungary...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:Meanwhile, in early 17th century Hungary... I feel like you don't really need to read that entire paragraph to know how it ends
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
You don't exactly want to begin an attack with the enemy shelling your preparation areas. *Cough*Kursk*Cough*
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Lauffgeld, more like  geld
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I feel like you don't really need to read that entire paragraph to know how it ends
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The point is that you utterly tip your hand if you call back the merchants, and you can't even do that without way more lead time. You can't just send these guys a text message and get them back home in a week. bewbies posted:even if everyone knows an operation is going to take place eventually it still makes sense to conceal d-day/h-hour as much as you possibly can HEY GAIL posted:it was such a surprise that when the journalist who broke the story phoned the UK to tell them it was happening, they didn't believe her until she held the phone out the window so they could hear the tanks Cyrano4747 posted:edit: you seem to ascribe a bizarre amount of stuff to incompetence. Do you really think that no one in Germany realized, especially after WW1, that merchant ships would be caught out in a bad situation when war broke out? This is less about the mystical faith in the will than the realities of modern warfare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I wrote all this before realizing I was behind on the thread, and I don't care care I wrote this poo poo. Imagine being on a horse and having to stab at people with that Patton one as you rode by, instead of slashing, as you would with all those other ones curved for that purpose. Even assuming the Patton saber was phoneboothed 50-100 years backward so that you'd have some kind of actual application in a regular order of battle, depending on which of his past lives Patton was channeling at the time. You'd fall off your horse trying to get a good stab in, or you'd get the drat thing hung up in someone's ribcage/foofy uniform bits and get dragged off your horse. Maybe it's designed for more of a melee situation where you aren't all that mobile and/or are already dismounted and complementing it with a carbine/pistol?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I attribute a lot of behavior of the Axis powers in WW2 to incompetence... because the leadership of the Axis powers in WW2 was largely incompetent. There's a lot of evidence demonstrating that. It's not only one of the reasons they lost, it's one of the reasons they ended up in the war in the first place. There is a world of difference between "incompetent" and "unsuccessful." The Axis powers did a lot of things that were ill advised at best, but they had reasons for them. Barbarossa, for example, wasn't the result of incompetence it was the outgrowth of Nazi racial-political theory into foreign policy. While there is certainly a laundry list of individual leaders who were political appointees or just a bad at their jobs (Goering is a thread favorite) the same can also be said of just about every major power in the world at that time. The main issue people are having is that you are trying to reduce large complex issues down to a single pronouncement that the Axis were incompetents. They weren't, but there were a lot of factors at play in strategy and decision making that you need a LOT of domestic political context to understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Imagine being on a horse and having to stab at people with that Patton one as you rode by, instead of slashing, as you would with all those other ones curved for that purpose. Even assuming the Patton saber was phoneboothed 50-100 years backward so that you'd have some kind of actual application in a regular order of battle, depending on which of his past lives Patton was channeling at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMNKLFn41IU here is a drill video from back then showing how you use it. It is specific motions to allow the dudes body to slide off your sword without that happening. you can also look up tent pegging to see one of the ways how they drilled lance use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Imagine being on a horse and having to stab at people with that Patton one as you rode by, instead of slashing, as you would with all those other ones curved for that purpose. Even assuming the Patton saber was phoneboothed 50-100 years backward so that you'd have some kind of actual application in a regular order of battle, depending on which of his past lives Patton was channeling at the time. edit: hello woodrow skillson, how are you on this fine day
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:See, the thing is Germany did tell it's merchant ships to sail for the nearest safe port. They just waited until it was too late. That was what happened in WW1 too. There wasn't a lot the German high command could have done about it then, to be fair. Events just moved too fast. In WW2, the Germans were dictating the time frame, and pulling back your merchant shipping in a period of rising tension was a pretty reasonable step to take, and one that when they finally took it, didn't tip off the Allies. At least, it didn't tell them anything they didn't already know from other things going on. That...doesn't contradict what I said. It was still clearly to Germany's advantage to conceal their operational plans; sending a series of open air messages to civilian steamers and then giving them days or weeks necessary to adequately respond would've been a monumentally bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
When it comes to swords, I defer to Matt Easton... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bee71tYERBw
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When it comes to swords, I defer to Matt Easton... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bee71tYERBw anyone who as watched his videos knows my sword post above is a condensed version of poo poo i learned from matt easton and sources he recommends lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:A sword of the time needs to be strong enough to parry a bayonet or swung musket butt, long enough to work as a sword, and depending on design, needs enough weight to generate force at the point of impact, to facilitate cutting. The very late swords like Patton's were thrust only. Smallswords were not a good mix, hence the Spadroon, and those still were not good enough, hence the shift to infantry sabers with more developed handguards and robust blades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
 from the same article what's hungarian for this is fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:this looks to my uneducated eye like everyone's trying to get to the sweetspot of the late 16th century cut and thrust sword, just a lot shorter this time (because let me tell you, rapier blades blow for a bunch of things) Yeah, its their weird progression where you pretty much had a very refined designs for one handed cut and thrust swords in either the rapier or broad/backsword, and then it shifts into this middle period of smallswords and spadroons and then to sabers which are far more like backswords than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:The fact many in the Allied nations didn't want to believe Germany was going to go to war despite all evidence doesn't make it a surprise attack. Is Pearl Harbor a surprise attack and, if so, why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There is a world of difference between "incompetent" and "unsuccessful." The Axis powers did a lot of things that were ill advised at best, but they had reasons for them. Barbarossa, for example, wasn't the result of incompetence it was the outgrowth of Nazi racial-political theory into foreign policy. I'm not saying everyone on the Axis side was incompetent. Within the constraints of the strategy force don them by their superiors, commanders like Yamamoto, Kesselring, and Guderian acquitted themselves well. The average German or Japanese soldier was often very skilled at their job. But the political regimes and strategic decision makers of Germany and Japan during World War 2 are almost defined by their mismanagement and inefficiency and unwillingness to adapt to realities on the ground. There was plenty of bull-headed and misguided behavior on the Allied side as well. A key difference was that the people at the top either were competent, were willing to admit they were out of their depth on a subject and turn it over to someone who did know what they were doing, or had institutions around them that were strong enough to push back if they persisted in foolish decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yeah, its their weird progression where you pretty much had a very refined designs for one handed cut and thrust swords in either the rapier or broad/backsword, and then it shifts into this middle period of smallswords and spadroons and then to sabers which are far more like backswords than anything else. for everything else they're too small HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
yeah and the thicker, beefier types you can get away with in battle if you are good, but man i would not want to be trusting that to stop a musket swung at me by the barrel
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yeah and the thicker, beefier types you can get away with in battle if you are good, but man i would not want to be trusting that to stop a musket swung at me by the barrel 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Have they ever made a telescoping blade like in Star trek
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I don't know what definition of incompetent you're working from, but doing things that are ill-advised at best due to demonstrably incorrect world views certainly fits mine. The entire German rationale for the war was based on a fantasy interpretation of what was going on around them. No, the entire German rationale for the war was deeply rooted in National Socialist ideology. It was a deeply flawed ideology, but it goes a long way towards explaining why the felt that it was absolutely vital to secure territory in the east for the Reich. Your same definition would make every leader who went to war for religions or ideological reasons incompetent. The problem is that you're trying to force your perspective of what's rational onto the decisions of people working from within a very different context and with wildly different perspectives. edit: the point is that they had reasons for doing what they did, those reasons were consistent with their beliefs and ideologies, and they did what they did to achieve specific goals that they thought would benefit their nation. Incompetence implies flat out being bad at your job, which they weren't. They were just doing things that run counter to the goals and agendas that you think leaders should pursue. edit 2: A larger issue is that Nazi ideology in particular was very bound up in the ideas of national struggle and the constant fear of decline. It's an ideology that tends towards conflict, and in this case conflict that they probably couldn't win. This is deeply rooted in a world view that you have to understand to figure out wtf they were doing Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Is Pearl Harbor a surprise attack and, if so, why? The surprise about the German invasion of Poland was that they'd done it at all, not the time or manner, and that they did it really shouldn't have been a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Yes, because the Japanese successfully hid their specific intentions until it was too late for the US to adequately respond. That the Japanese launched an attack on 7 December 1941 wasn't much of a surprise, though the Japanese did manage to make it unclear exactly when they would strke. It was where that attack took place that caught the US off guard. I read your last sentence three times and it still doesn't make a lick of sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I read your last sentence three times and it still doesn't make a lick of sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:he's saying that everyone knew the Germans were hostile (which is true) and that therefore it doesn't count as a surprise attack (which is...eh.) As opposed to the Japanese who were fighting China (and the US) in a 4 and a half long year war... Or that a majority of US citizens, in a gallup poll, expected a war to break out between the Japanese and the US. Edit: words
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:he's saying that everyone knew the Germans were hostile (which is true) and that therefore it doesn't count as a surprise attack (which is...eh.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
It's also ignoring the issue of whether or not France and Britain were going to honor their commitments to the Poles. Hitler warned his generals earlier in the year that Poland wasn't going to go like Czechoslovakia did, but he was referring to military resistance by the poles. Right up until Aug 31 the Germans were actively working to keep the French and the British out of the war. Part of that is trying to make it very unclear that an attack was as imminent as it was. HeyGail's story about the Brits not believing the invasion had actually happened was down to the ongoing negotiations. Hitler basically got fed up and figured he couldn't get a solid guarantee of British/French neutrality, signed the v. Ribbentrop pact, and got confident that with the soviets kicking in the rear door he could finish it quick enough to negotiate a peace with the west in the following year. Going back to the original discussion about ships, THIS is why you aren't pulling your entire merchant marine back home in the months before September. If all of a sudden German ships turn around and GTFO of French and Commonwealth waters it's a giant escalation. It makes any kind of talks less likely to work out, as it signals to everyone that the situation has deteriorated to the point where not only do you think war is inevitable but you're going to kick off any day now. Again, this is really important because both France and England did not want a war for domestic political reasons. They hadn't even mobilized their militaries. This is a big part of why you don't see a Fall 39 offensive in the west to take pressure off Poland. If the Germans pull back the ships in July that gives everyone ample warning that they should mobilize in preparation for a general conflict. The only allied nations to mobilize before WW2 started were Poland (August 24) and loving Canada (August 25, a direct reaction to the escalation of tensions signaled by Polish mobilization). Even THEN you are talking about a week's notice between Poland mobilizing and the invasion. Mobilization isn't an immediate process. I don't know the timetable of the Poles, but they probably weren't completely out in the field when the attack started. In some universe where the Germans are really freaked about their merchant marine and order a general recall in July? You're talking about much earlier mobilizations by the Poles and probably the British and French as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:As opposed to the Japanese who were fighting China (and the US) in a 4 and a half long year war... I think the surprise comes from an attack on pearl harbor. It was legit unexpected that pearl would be a target for a carrier action. If they invaded the Philippines without the attack on pearl you'd see the narrative of "finally we are attacked"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Even THEN you are talking about a week's notice between Poland mobilizing and the invasion. Mobilization isn't an immediate process. I don't know the timetable of the Poles, but they probably weren't completely out in the field when the attack started. In some universe where the Germans are really freaked about their merchant marine and order a general recall in July? You're talking about much earlier mobilizations by the Poles and probably the British and French as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
quote:It really shouldn't have been a surprise that Germany attacked Poland because they'd said they would, and when. I can understand that people were shocked that anyone would willingly start a war when they didn't have to, though. What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yeah, its their weird progression where you pretty much had a very refined designs for one handed cut and thrust swords in either the rapier or broad/backsword, and then it shifts into this middle period of smallswords and spadroons and then to sabers which are far more like backswords than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:I also notice that both this report and the previously posted diary have people locating things on maps by referring to the letters of map labels. Was this common for the time, or was Finnish map training not very good? I dunno about other armies, but the Swedish army still teaches and uses this method today, as a complement to the various grid ref methods. If you need the precision of a grid ref, you use a grid ref, but if you need to communicate to your company HQ that you're going to relocate to "somewhere around there" while lying in a ditch holding a wrinkled map in one hand, it's quicker and easier to take a glance at the map and say "200 meters north of the P in Placename". TheFluff fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:05 |
|
Fangz posted:What? I'm assuming this is a reference to the ultimatum the Germans issued (which was not really an exact warning).
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:01
|
|
