|
Taerkar posted:I think the US built more carriers (Fleet, light, and escort) in some years than the IJN had throughout the entire war. Yeah, the numbers are ridiculous in every category: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 05:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:In their defence, they were aware of this. Their plan was to win immediately. Finland during WW2 had extremely long training times for new pilots, I read the memoirs (Hävittäjälentäjä Karjalan Taivaalla) of one who was cursing the fact that he had to get 200 solo flying hours before he would be transferred to a frontline squadron. Then again, between late 1941 and summer 1944 the front was relatively quiet so they could spare the time. I think they had a system where the aces would rotate to train new pilots for short periods and then back to the front. And those hours came in handy for that guy when he finally had them all and had to go into air battles in the summer of 1944 in a Curtiss Hawk. He survived a ton of combat missions and the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, the numbers are ridiculous in every category: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm We even built carriers for lake use only
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:My usual suggestion here is for Peter Hart's The Great War: A Combat History (and he also has individual volumes for each year of the war, if you find you like that sort of thing). He's in charge of the Imperial War Museum's oral history archive and he does about as good a job as it's possible to do with balancing things like using personal accounts from not-Brits wherever possible, and bringing in stuff that isn't the BEF and the Western Front, and still giving some context to the mud and blood while being primarily a combat history, and keeping it all within a reasonable length, and presenting the latest thinking without going overboard and disappearing down the rabbit hole of "and so of course it was all a good and necessary thing to do". A few pages back but, what Trin is trying to say here, is that the absolute best thing to read, when trying to get a grip of what the gently caress is happening in WWI, is http://makersley.com/war Coincidentally he should propably get around to updating it again (and setting up a patreon for his time and effort put into it) cause i need my goddamn daily fix of WWI daily misery. Also i bought the first two books of yours to my dad as a birthday present and was shortly after told that he had mixed feelings about said gift. At first that worried me, but then he explained that i had just gifted him something that completely absorbed 4 days that he kinda had other plans for. SerthVarnee fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Here is a sillier question, what type of ale wine or spirit has had the complete opposite effect during a conflict in military history? Wikipedia posted:Very late in the evening of 1 October the Finnish troops of Infantry Regiment 11 captured a German supply depot – which were colloquially known as 'little-Berlins' – and found large stores of alcohol. Order and discipline disappeared from the 2nd battalion of and from most of 1st battalion as well. Later on even the newly arriving 2nd battalion of Infantry Regiment 53 was also accidentally directed to the same location with similar results. Events at 'little-Berlin' essentially meant that Finnish forces in the area lost a whole day and allowed Germans to marshal their forces. The Finns were starting to lose the initiative. There's a boardgame about the battle featuring "drunk" and "hung over" markers to put on your troops as they discover the alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Apart from the battle of Cadiz, there is also the battle of Tornio: Oh my gosh I love it
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Here is a sillier question, what type of ale wine or spirit has had the complete opposite effect during a conflict in military history? Someone itt taught me about the Strategic Calvados Defense, where an entire offensive stalled because people discovered caches of the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, I suspected as much; I just wanted to check if there were specific counter-examples. I mean, what even counts as a legitimate technological advance in the military? Mounting guns on Toyotas was an innovation that took advantage of material means and engineering resources available at a certain moment, and it swayed a war against an otherwise technologically superior enemy, and has since been a source of upsets and inspiration world over. But most people probably wouldn't look at a technical and think "technological development" even though it effectively was one. If you define your question as "Has a side ever come up with relatively innovative technological devices during a war that gave them a new edge over the enemy", I think you'll find a lot of examples among asymmetric conflicts. If you phrase it as "Has a brand new wunderwaffe unparalleled by anything else available at the time ever decided a war", the answer will be most likely a no. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Aug 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
Just nipping in to let you know I'm running a goon vs goon Lp of Combat Mission - Final Blitzkreig. So if any of you guys don't follow the LP forum and want to know how you would do in command of a WWII unit - get in there!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Just nipping in to let you know I'm running a goon vs goon Lp of Combat Mission - Final Blitzkreig. Poorly, if beyond overlord is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
C'mon Tevery Best and HEY GUNS, we'll unfuck Germanys war effort this time 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Tias posted:C'mon Tevery Best and HEY GUNS, we'll unfuck Germanys war effort this time 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Tias posted:Someone itt taught me about the Strategic Calvados Defense, where an entire offensive stalled because people discovered caches of the stuff. This is one of the reasons why the Spring Offensive stalled out as quickly as it did in 1918; the deprived Germans kept running across enemy supply dumps stuffed full of luxuries like "real bread" and "real coffee" that they hadn't seen hide nor hair of in at least a year, and they all went to fill their boots at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
HANS IT'S NOT MADE FROM ACORNS! NOT MADE FROM ACORNS HANS! A century ago, two young German soldiers wept tears of joy and just stopped fighting.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:This is one of the reasons why the Spring Offensive stalled out as quickly as it did in 1918; the deprived Germans kept running across enemy supply dumps stuffed full of luxuries like "real bread" and "real coffee" that they hadn't seen hide nor hair of in at least a year, and they all went to fill their boots at once. Aw, that's precious. I sort of get now why troops would shout "you're prolonging the war" at their officers, fighting without coffee and bread is just death to modern morale 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Tias posted:Aw, that's precious. I sort of get now why troops would shout "you're prolonging the war" at their officers, fighting without coffee and bread is just death to modern morale Discovering such treasures (and big fresh Yanks) after being told for the last year that the other side was in even worse shape: also death to morale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
I imagine learning that the fuel for your air cover is also incredibly limited doesn't do wonders.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Thread on how much of a shitshow Nagasaki was https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1027546490351374336  Uh, guys
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
The Japanese grand strategy in WWII was not a bad one considering their operational environment and political/strategic objectives. I don't really understand why there's this overarching assumption they were stupid.Grey Hunter posted:Just nipping in to let you know I'm running a goon vs goon Lp of Combat Mission - Final Blitzkreig. The handful of these I've watched have been great reading. takeaway: it is a lot easier to feel smart as a military historian than it is to feel smart when you're actually doing it (even on a computer in a comfy air conditioned room) bewbies fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Aug 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:This is one of the reasons why the Spring Offensive stalled out as quickly as it did in 1918; the deprived Germans kept running across enemy supply dumps stuffed full of luxuries like "real bread" and "real coffee" that they hadn't seen hide nor hair of in at least a year, and they all went to fill their boots at once. Trin, any way I can buy your books outside of Amazon? I've tried several times now, but Amazon always has some kind of issue and I'm slowly running out of options to try. Amazon just changes what kind of error message I'm getting now. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The Japanese grand strategy in WWII was not a bad one considering their operational environment and political/strategic objectives. I don't really understand why there's this overarching assumption they were stupid. They weren't stupid, per se, but they drastically and catastrophically misread American intentions and politics. They thought America would accept the loss of the Philippines and Japanese dominion over the western Pacific and east Asia after losing its Pacific fleet, deciding it was a lost cause they couldn't meaningfully contest. That's what happened with Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, after all. They were wrong, and even in the planning for Leyte, Japan didn't appreciate that America wouldn't back out of the war after a defeat no matter how catastrophic. Japan consistently thought the Americans were beaten, demoralized, and just needing one more push to be kicked out of the game well into 1944.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Seeing what they wanted to see?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Morholt posted:There's a boardgame about the battle featuring "drunk" and "hung over" markers to put on your troops as they discover the alcohol. What's the title of this game? I must have it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Seeing what they wanted to see? Exactly - this was a problem with Yamamoto especially, and his response to Tokyo trying to rein him in was to go "Do things my way or I and my senior staff quit." Midway was a godawful boondoggle that never could have worked the way Yamamoto envisioned to name one outstanding example of Japanese wishful thinking. The Japanese were expecting a repeat of the Russo-Japanese War: a few big, hard-fought battles that could contain a theoretically enormous conflict to a small, localized theater and achieve Japan's geopolitical goals even though on paper their enemy was virtually undamaged and Japan couldn't hope to truly knock the opposing nation out of the war in any traditional sense. Japan's military leaders were expecting the Pacific War to be like this, Japan's rank and file were expecting the Pacific War to be like this, Japan's military industries were expecting the Pacific War to be like this. They equipped, planned, and trained for a repeat of this kind of conflict. But, because America in 1942 was not like Russia in 1904 and the geopolitical situation around the world had changed significantly, the Pacific War was very different from how Japan had envisioned things going. It took Japan a long time to realize just how badly they'd misread their opponent, and that they'd planned, trained, and armed themselves for a strategic situation that was never going to happen. Was Japan's leadership stupid? In my opinion, no. Within the framework Japan's leadership across the board had, Japan's military leadership was quite intelligent. They'd thought hard about the situation Japan was facing, and given their resource constraints were downright brilliant at preparing themselves to fight the way they planned - the Zero was a wonder in the early years, Japanese torpedoes were second to none, Japan's carrier capabilities were like nothing the world had seen, Japan made terrific use of surprise and pulled off some stunning wins, and they repeatedly demonstrated their mastery of infiltration tactics on land and vastly superior night fighting capabilities at sea. The fault in Japan's leadership, in my opinion, was failing to anticipate the future. They didn't understand that they were up against a very different opponent from their last big war with a vastly different political calculus and military capability, and that lead to Japan failing to anticipate what the Pacific War would be like. Japan fought brilliantly in many respects, their plans actually pretty much worked against the colonial European powers, but even when Japan probably should have been realizing that war with America was an entirely different beast (Coral Sea would be my pick), they persisted in seeing what they expected to see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Apart from the battle of Cadiz, there is also the battle of Tornio: Hadn't heard of this before so I went looking in to the archives. The war diaries of the 11th Infantry Regiment and all it's subordinate units all stop some three months before the whole thing. Maybe they got misfiled or lost.  The lowest unit in the chain of command I can find with diaries spanning the time period is the 3rd Division, which the 11th Inf.Reg. was part of. They, too, have very few diaries regarding the whole Lapland business, but I did find an order dated the 3rd of October (the drunkenness was on the 1st, according to Wikipedia): 3rd Division posted:3rd Division HQ Phone This also reminded me of this Fingerpori on the burning of Rovaniemi by the retreating Germans:  - Our train is arriving in Rovaniemi - We'll continue in one hour - Can the men go to platform for a cigarette? - Jawohl! - Rovaniemi! - Smoking allowed! Literally: It's okay to burn!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 16:59
|
|
about drunken Finns 
|
The biggest mistake that the Japanese made was not understanding why they were able to deliver decisive blows that knocked out Russia and the other colonial powers and why that would never work on the US. Every colonial power had their manufacturing base in and around Europe so one good victory would mean that it would take a significant amount of time for new ships to be created and sent over to Asia. The US though was able to produce ships right into the Pacific Ocean and even should they suffer a decisive defeat, the time required to rebuild the ships and get them back into the fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Seeing what they wanted to see? I'd characterize it more as they just didn't get the future right. You have to make assumptions when planning, and they made the wrong ones. The ones they made were generally logical and backed by history, but they ended up not being right. It is REALLY easy in 2018 to be like "lol why didn't they anticipate the following things that I, in 2018, know happened" but that poo poo is HARD to do in real life. I worked military futures for most of a decade and routinely read through stuff from ~2005 or whatever like "lol that was stupid" and I know people in 2025 are going to be reading my stuff with the same mindset.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Trin, any way I can buy your books outside of Amazon? I've tried several times now, but Amazon always has some kind of issue and I'm slowly running out of options to try. OK, question resolved. It took me four tries, but I finally made my way through Amazon's convoluted way of dealing with this poo poo. Books bought. Trin, now make with the next one please, asap
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Cessna posted:What's the title of this game? I must have it. Tornio 44
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'd characterize it more as they just didn't get the future right. You have to make assumptions when planning, and they made the wrong ones. The ones they made were generally logical and backed by history, but they ended up not being right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Tias posted:C'mon Tevery Best and HEY GUNS, we'll unfuck Germanys war effort this time I'm not going to have the time to watch the videos until September and I am also absolutely awful at CM games. But, come September, I'm planning on taking another swing at Red Winter. If work doesn't kill me first, that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
So a good defensive tactic to use if you're expecting an invasion would be to stash tons of easily discovered alcohol at the first places that would get captured. The downside: you can't, under any circumstances, let your own troops know about the existence of this plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Ixnay about the area denial B-O-O-Z-E
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'd characterize it more as they just didn't get the future right. You have to make assumptions when planning, and they made the wrong ones. The ones they made were generally logical and backed by history, but they ended up not being right. IMO it's more that they made assumptions and then built their entire plan and war machine around those assumptions with virtually no thought or contingencies for things beyond 'I sure do hope this works!' and were then unable to adjust to the way things were by '43 and kept trying to double down on their initial plan. I know they were constrained by the realities of their geographic position, industry, and economy, but it doesn't seem like they made any particular effort to adjust to the actual situation until it was way too late.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
One of the things Hotta's book points out is how many of the war cabinet debating the decision to attack Pearl Harbor were convinced that it wouldn't work but nobody wanted to be the one to stick his neck out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:IMO it's more that they made assumptions and then built their entire plan and war machine around those assumptions with virtually no thought or contingencies for things beyond 'I sure do hope this works!' and were then unable to adjust to the way things were by '43 and kept trying to double down on their initial plan. I'd argue that they couldn't possibly have won a war of attrition against the US and thus trained and equipped a war they could win, rather than invest money and effort to lose a war they couldn't win more slowly. By 1943 the only option they had was unconditional surrender, there was no military solution to the situation they found themselves in, and theior political decision making was too hosed to be able to do the single option they had to get out of the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:My usual suggestion here is for Peter Hart's The Great War: A Combat History (and he also has individual volumes for each year of the war, if you find you like that sort of thing). He's in charge of the Imperial War Museum's oral history archive and he does about as good a job as it's possible to do with balancing things like using personal accounts from not-Brits wherever possible, and bringing in stuff that isn't the BEF and the Western Front, and still giving some context to the mud and blood while being primarily a combat history, and keeping it all within a reasonable length, and presenting the latest thinking without going overboard and disappearing down the rabbit hole of "and so of course it was all a good and necessary thing to do". Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be digging into it presently
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:One of the things Hotta's book points out is how many of the war cabinet debating the decision to attack Pearl Harbor were convinced that it wouldn't work but nobody wanted to be the one to stick his neck out. Is that based on pre-war records or post-war interviews?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
sullat posted:Is that based on pre-war records or post-war interviews? I'll have to check. I think it's a combination. I follow your logic. It's easy enough after the fact, to say, "Oh, I never really believed it was a good idea.". But I think a lot of it came from private conversations and diary entries at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 21:13
|
|