Milhist Thread Part The IVth: sir, my ass is flowing like Sun Tzu's army

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread Part The IVth: sir, my ass is flowing like Sun Tzu's army

«‹›500 »

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Comstar posted:

What made the Universal Carrier so good it ended up with a 113,000 built, more than any other AFV in history?

They were small, simple and light so easy to produce, almost one third of a M2/3 half-track's weight. On the other hand, being small you also needed more of them for a given task, eg. to haul a battalion.

quote:

Why were half tracks stop being used?

The reason why half-tracks were a thing at all was that it's easier to steer a pair of wheels, and also mechanically simpler and cheaper to design. Eg. the Universal Carrier relied on differential braking for steering where brakes were applied to the side where the driver wanted to turn. So you are constantly applying brakes on one side or the other which is not A Good Thing - but for a vehicle that light still manageable. Anyway, later tracked APCs have been heavier and use steering systems similar to what tanks have, giving them superior cross-country performance.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 15:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 10:15

Molentik: Apr 30, 2013

Didn't the Universal Carrier have a system where the track itself would bend slightly to make small corrections?

Another reason the Carrier was popular was that it was a versatile platform to put weapons on. Mortars, machineguns, anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles etc.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 16:43

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

Comstar posted:

Random questions I've had stuck in my head for awhile:

Why did the RAF come up with and stick with the V formation for fighters? I know in WW1 some SE5 squadrons had great success just keeping in formation while the leader got the kill, but staying so close and spending more time keeping in formation that actually fighting seems like something they should have changed a lot earlier.

You already got a great answer where it came from, but the biggest reason it persisted into WWII was because it looked good at airshows. I'm not kidding.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 16:54

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

bewbies posted:

You already got a great answer where it came from, but the biggest reason it persisted into WWII was because it looked good at airshows. I'm not kidding.

Also, while not entirely accurate, another reason was because it was thought that a Formation leader would only be able to command/control 2 wingmen at most.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:24

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

I answered a question on Quora about the German lack of semi-auto rifles in World War II with a long post about the problems with the Gewehr 41 and their difficulties producing enough weapons to meet demand as the war went on. Someone replied with a very smart and interesting rebuttal of my claim that Germany was attempting to conquer Europe:

quote:

Regarding your knowledge about those rifles your answer is really impressive. I just want to add and clarify something about the historical context, since it seems you are still pretty much in the War time propaganda...

There was the no "Nazi dream of control over all of Europe", thats just the old propaganda. Unfortunately, many forget the important point, Britain and France declared war on germany not the other way around . Hitler made it very clear that he never wanted war with Britain. Every step in the West was made in reaction, to actions made by the Allies and due to the necessity to being able for Germany to defend themself against a invasion by the combined forces of the,after all ,two greatest and most powerfull Empires at that time, who both just had declared War on them.

In order to prevent being soon hopelessly encirclet by the enemies they had to shift the defensline to the shores since it was essential, to avert that Allied forces set foot on the continent. The same was done in Denmark and Norway again only as reaction on Allied actions and uniquely for defensive purpose.

Germany's strategic interests and necessitys in Scandinavia and the existence the aggressive intentions of the Allies to invade Norway at the very same day to open an offensive there, created a compelling necessity for Germany to do somthing.He also never wanted to invade or occupy Western Europe. He�s was in fact the only one leader during the War who made continusly Peace offers.

He sent leaflets over London ( in order to bypass the censorship and propaganda) explaing that he didn't want war with them. He was prepared to withdraw German forces from Holland, Norway and Denmark Belgium . He was prepared to basically withdraw all his forces from Western Europe.

But it were all refused. From Churchill's point of view though that would still have made Germany too powerful. Instead of peace, a British Empire poo poo storm broke loose Great Britain declared war on Germany September 3, 1939, 11 a.m. France declared war on Germany September 3, 1939, 5 p.m. India declared war on Germany September 3, 1939 Australia declared war on Germany September 3, 1939 New Zealand declared war on Germany September 3, 1939 Union of South Africa declared war on Germany September 6, 1939 Canada declared war on Germany September 10, 1939. all in all 53 countries had declared war on Germany merely about an ordinary border conflict. A conflict which similar happened hundreds of times everywere in the world ( I wonder why isn't this considered as conspiracy....Not even to mention the fact that the USSR also attacked Poland but France and Britain never declared war on them. Isn�t this actually very strange Don't should them declare the war to both of them? Why german invasion was bad and soviet invasion at ther same time was good? They even made an alliance with Stalin, who invade the other half of Poland and who had in the early 1930 already killed 10 millions of its own people .That Hitler was therefore a bit concerned about the bolshevics and their desire for a communist-world-revolution is at least understandable. Once one looks behind all the propaganda, appears the picture of WW2 very different...

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:25

Pornographic Memory: Dec 17, 2008

Plus really the Poles attacked Germany first at Gleiwitz, leaving the Germans no choice except to occupy and ethnically cleanse the whole country.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:35

Saros: Dec 29, 2009; Its almost like we're a Bureaucracy, in space!

I set sail for the Planet of Lab Requisitions!!

Ah that famous German defensive war the *checks notes* "....Second World War?"

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:37

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Pornographic Memory posted:

Plus really the Poles attacked Germany first at Gleiwitz, leaving the Germans no choice except to occupy and ethnically cleanse the whole country.

I believe the expression is Tit fur Tod

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:37

Don Gato: Apr 28, 2013; Actually a bipedal cat.; Grimey Drawer

Saros posted:

Ah that famous German defensive war the *checks notes* "....Second World War?"

It's the real life version of that Onion headline stating that Germany had saved Europe from the Polish Menace

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:45

FrangibleCover: Jan 23, 2018; Nothing going on in my quiet corner of the Pacific.

This is the life. I'm just lying here in my hammock in Townsville, sipping a G&T.

An ordinary border conflict, the Poles thought they should have borders and the Germans thought they shouldn't.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:46

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

chitoryu12 posted:

I answered a question on Quora about the German lack of semi-auto rifles in World War II with a long post about the problems with the Gewehr 41 and their difficulties producing enough weapons to meet demand as the war went on. Someone replied with a very smart and interesting rebuttal of my claim that Germany was attempting to conquer Europe:

Once you look past all the propaganda and instead take all of this propaganda at face value.

That said, it does seem like Hitler actually was taken by surprise that Britain and France declared war on him over attacking Poland, as he appears to have gambled that they would once again back down. Hitler kind of seems to have forgot about that old British obsession with maintaining the European balance of power and preventing hegemony. Also Chamberlain was pretty drat angry at Hitler over having screwed him over at Munich.

Randarkman fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 8, 2019

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:46

EvilMerlin: Apr 10, 2018; Meh.

Give it a try...

chitoryu12 posted:

I answered a question on Quora about the German lack of semi-auto rifles in World War II with a long post about the problems with the Gewehr 41 and their difficulties producing enough weapons to meet demand as the war went on. Someone replied with a very smart and interesting rebuttal of my claim that Germany was attempting to conquer Europe:

loving Nazi appologists they really do want revisionist histories.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:47

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

It�s a live example of the comic where Rational Hitler debates a caricature going �ARGGGHJBLRRGH GENOCIDE IS BAD�

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:55

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Randarkman posted:

Once you look past all the propaganda and instead take all of this propaganda at face value.

That said, it does seem like Hitler actually was taken by surprise that Britain and France declared war on him over attacking Poland, as he appears to have gambled that they would once again back down. Hitler kind of seems to have forgot about that old British obsession with maintaining the European balance of power and preventing hegemony. Also Chamberlain was pretty drat angry at Hitler over having screwed him over at Munich.

like many germans, he was a giant weeb for the UK.

i have walked down the middle of Cambridge University (right next to that one big church that's in all the photos) with a literal Graf, and he was as unselfconsciously pleased as only a German can be that he was there, with a briefcase in his hand and a bowler hat on his head

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:01

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

HEY GUNS posted:

like many germans, he was a giant weeb for the UK.

i have walked down the middle of Cambridge University (right next to that one big church that's in all the photos) with a literal Graf, and he was as unselfconsciously pleased as only a German can be that he was there, with a briefcase in his hand and a bowler hat on his head

Was he though? I don't doubt there were many German nobles and upper class people who had respect for England, possibly many other Germans as well, then again Hitler was far from being an aristocrat and famously despised the German aristocracy (also even among the German aristocracy there were people like Franz Halder who was justifying further loyalty to Hitler from 1942 onwards with the justification that Hitler deserved "one more chance to free Germany from English capitalism" (which is a very junker kind of thing to say I think, they had a very low opinion of capitalism, at least "international finance capitalism" or something like that, essentially "the Jews") or something like that. AFAIK there is little merit, outside of Soviet propaganda, that Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain against the USSR, he saw war with the West as unavoidable and even desirable, he just kind of thought and wanted to take the wars one at a time in order to avoid the dreaded two front war (which is also why France had to be conquered before invading the East).

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:09

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

FrangibleCover posted:

An ordinary border conflict, the Poles thought they should have borders and the Germans thought they shouldn't.

They really shouldn't have turned down Hitler's compromise offer: Poland gets to have its borders, Germany gets what is within.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:15

Kemper Boyd: Aug 6, 2007; no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Also, while not entirely accurate, another reason was because it was thought that a Formation leader would only be able to command/control 2 wingmen at most.

There's a Lindybeige video where he explains that tank platoons are of a certain size since it's biologically impossible for the platoon leader to command more tanks.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:16

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Randarkman posted:

Was he though?

there's a whole lot in mein kampf about how the british empire proves that they are a noble aryan race

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:20

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

HEY GUNS posted:

there's a whole lot in mein kampf about how the british empire proves that they are a noble aryan race

Okay, well, I never really wanted to read mein kampf to be honest.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:21

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Randarkman posted:

AFAIK there is little merit, outside of Soviet propaganda, that Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain against the USSR, he saw war with the West as unavoidable and even desirable, he just kind of thought and wanted to take the wars one at a time in order to avoid the dreaded two front war (which is also why France had to be conquered before invading the East).

I think it's more that Britain didnt really have much that Hitler wanted. Britain didn't have a continental presence, and Hitler didnt have any real interest in overseas colonies. He was happy enough to colonize Poland and Russia. So if Britain had been willing to stand by and let Germany have the continent, I dont think war with them would have been Hitler's priority.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:23

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Randarkman posted:

Okay, well, I never really wanted to read mein kampf to be honest.

It is not a good book.

But yeah iirc in it he seems to think the english are proud and pure germanic natural allies. Conflict with them would be an unfortunate but temporary necessity that would end with the British Empire intact and pro-Germany. The french are natural enemies but not without merit. Slavs, jews, and other nefarious foreigners must go. And the US has shamefully diluted its pure saxon blood and is irredeemable.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:25

Ice Fist: Jun 20, 2012; ^^ Please send feedback to beefstache911@hotmail.com, this is not a joke that 'stache is the real deal. Serious assessments only. ^^

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

And the US has shamefully diluted its pure saxon blood and is irredeemable.

He's completely right just not for the reason stated

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:27

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

chitoryu12 posted:

I answered a question on Quora about the German lack of semi-auto rifles in World War II with a long post about the problems with the Gewehr 41 and their difficulties producing enough weapons to meet demand as the war went on. Someone replied with a very smart and interesting rebuttal of my claim that Germany was attempting to conquer Europe:

Utterly loving disgusting.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:30

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Kemper Boyd posted:

There's a Lindybeige video where he explains that tank platoons are of a certain size since it's biologically impossible for the platoon leader to command more tanks.

Aww yeah hit me with them biotruths

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:31

bewbies: Sep 23, 2003; Fun Shoe

oh man there's nothing this thread loves more than taking down misinformed nazis who don't post here

fucker just walked into the THUNDERDOME

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:34

Bourricot: Aug 7, 2016

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

I forgot to respond to this! (Or take photos but I will do that eventually)

My understanding is my great-uncle (the elder) went at 17, sometime in 1942, and chose military service over civilian. I�m told that suitably-german-descended alsatians after 1941 (when it was officially transferred from Vichy to Berlin) could choose civillian employment or military service, and that �civilian service� was less glamorous at best and slave labour at worst. He was in combat on the eastern front, visited the family once during that time, finally got home for keeps in 1946, and had to serve again in the post-war french army for some time. That side of the family is still in France.

My grandfather was the younger and also chose military service. He was sent to the east, where he drove trucks in some capacity, and both got bombed and got in firefights with not-elaborated-on �russians� who sound like partisans. He was lightly wounded and ended up going to hospital and then sent to Italy. Lucky for me, in Italy he got to surrender pretty gracefully to some brits in 1944, and ended up going to the USA. He had my dad in Chicago and my dad ended up marrying a francophone jew whose family had left sometime in the 19th century, and here I am. Ironic indeed. I don�t know much but the family has enough documentation to confirm the basic stories.

More sad than ironic- my dad ended up serving in Vietnam. Avoiding post-war service in France�s colonial wars was one of the reasons my grandfather left in the first place.

Policy was definitely to send the malgr�-nous east, though. Afaik that was the policy even in WW1 when Alsace was less-obviously an occupied territory. But from what I�ve been told the Second Reich time wasn�t exactly pleasant for alsatians. It was equivalent to, if not worse than, what happened under the french, who are of course not known for loving minority languages and cultures. Elsass-Lothringen certainly wasn�t given the same autonomy as say, Bavaria or Saxony.

Thanks for the answer, I appreciate the details

My grandmother lost two brothers on the Eastern Front. Her future husband (my grandpa) managed to evade that fate by escaping to Switzerland, where he was promptly arrested and jailed. Once freed, he managed to get to Vichy France, and from there to Spain and North Africa, where he joined the Free French. He landed in Provence and fought til Berlin. I'm extremely fuzzy on the details because I only know this second-hand through my mom. My grandpa just wasn't much of a talker by the time I grew up

As for Alsace-Moselle under the Second Reich, it was granted autonomy in 1911. Then WW1 happened, so who knows where it could have gone.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:35

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

It is not a good book.

not just that he's immoral. it's that he can't loving write.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:37

Comrade Gorbash: Jul 12, 2011; My paper soldiers form a wall, five paces thick and twice as tall.

HEY GUNS posted:

not just that he's immoral. it's that he can't loving write.

It's astonishing how badly written Mein Kampf is.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:39

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

quote:

There was the no "Nazi dream of control over all of Europe", thats just the old propaganda. Unfortunately, many forget the important point, Britain and France declared war on germany not the other way around .

So who declared war on the USSR on June 22, 1941?

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:39

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Cessna posted:

So who declared war on the USSR on June 22, 1941?

The Soviet Union

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:44

BalloonFish: Jun 30, 2013; Fun Shoe

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Stealing a post I made in the last thread
Going back to experiences gained during WW1, it was thought that the creation of a 2-seater pilot/gunner plane akin to the Vickers F.B.5 or the RAF F.E.2, where the pilot might have a fixed gun firing forward and an observer/gunner firing a gun in a turret, would allow for longer times within the fighter's sights, while also allowing the potential to attack bombers from other/more blind spots.

The rationale of the 'Daffy' was partly that a standard fighter of the time with two forward-facing rifle-calibre machine guns wouldn't be able to put enough ammo into a modern metal-skinned bomber to bring it down, given the relative speeds and the time said bomber would be in a fighter's sights. The Defiant therefore used Britain's world lead in enclosed power-operated turrets to allow for zero-deflection shooting and 'broadsides' against bombers - especially firing upwards at the target where the bomber will be marked against the sky and the fighter hidden against the ground. This also tied into the other principle behind the Defiant's design - 'no allowance' shooting - a method discovered in WW1 by the gunners of pusher-fighters with swivel-mount guns like the FE2b. At a specific amount of elevation the forces of thrust, air resistance and gravity all cancel each other out and a bullet travels in a straight line between gun and target. The Defiant's turret could lock into a pre-set forward-facing position (with the guns elevated at the required amount for no-allowance shooting at the aircraft's normal attack speed) and the pilot's gunsight (even though he had no means of directly firing the guns) was built to provide no-allowance firing solutions - just get the target in the sight and the bullets will hit it - no deflection, no adjustment for drop. The Air Ministry also issued a specification for a twin-engined heavy fighter with twin cannons in a turret that could only traverse in the forward arc, thus clearly being intended for no-allowance shooting. Bristol, Gloster and Armstrong-Whitworth all produced proposals but the orders were never issued.

I suspect the fondness for the Vic was from similar roots - that two- or four-gun fighters operating individually simply wouldn't have the firepower to down modern bombers. Using a Vic to essentially fly three aircraft as one theoretically put six guns to work on one target. Even the eight-gun Hurricane and Spitfire struggled to reliably down German bombers in the time available.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Another dumb idea that hosed over bomber attack methods? Chennault and some others proposed flying in a tight Vic and attacking together to concentrate firepower on one target Edit: Or picking individual targets, but still flying as a Vic formation. Like... think of a Vic formation flying together, tightly, and all shooting at the same target, unless I've misread the text in the book.

"More significantly, the "Three Men on a Trapeze" unit proved that aircraft could hold close formation during the violent manoeuvres of combat and, in doing so, could bring to bear on the enemy bombers not the guns of a single fighter, but the combined firepower of three fighters operating in complete harmony."

Interestingly Chennault completely changed his mind from his 'Trapeze' days following his observations of the Chinese (plus Russian volunteer groups) operating against the Japanese. By the time he was training the AVG he was instructing his pilots to stick in lead/wingman pairs. His three squadrons had a nominal duty strength of 18 aircraft each, divided into three flights of six, each flight divided into three elements of two. The wingman's job was to stick above and behind his lead to provide added firepower to the target and, if needed, cover his tail. He also operated on a broader three-element system, especially for when operating against escorted Japanese bomber formations (the AVG's main role). The 'Assault' element would dive in first to scatter the formation and draw in the escort, the 'Support' element would follow to attack the now disrupted and unescorted target and the 'Reserve' element would provide high cover. This worked whether the AVG was operating as a Group (each squadron to one of the roles), a squadron (each flight took a role) or even a single flight (each pair).

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:45

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Jobbo_Fett posted:

The Soviet Union

Viktor Suvorov, is that you?

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:46

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Cessna posted:

So who declared war on the USSR on June 22, 1941?

Georgia

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:47

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Comrade Gorbash posted:

It's astonishing how badly written Mein Kampf is.

Can confirm. When I first tried I thought my German was just showing it�s weaknesses. Then years later I went back with better language skills having sorted through all manner of dense prose put out.m by communist officialdom and nope.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:50

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Comrade Gorbash posted:

It's astonishing how badly written Mein Kampf is.

The english version I read had footnotes just showing the original german, as if to say �no, the problem is not my translation�

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:51

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

The english version I read had footnotes just showing the original german, as if to say �no, the problem is not my translation�

every now and then i have seen (sic) rendered as (sic!) to indicate the same thing and i always like finding it

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:54

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

I read Mein Kampf expecting a chilling ode to diabolical evil, but nah, Hitler was just another racist lout as far as his writing's concerned.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:55

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

he wanted to title it Four And A Half Years Of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity, And Cowardice but the publisher suggested My Struggle instead

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:57

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Cessna posted:

Viktor Suvorov, is that you?

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 10:15

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Halloween Jack posted:

I read Mein Kampf expecting a chilling ode to diabolical evil, but nah, Hitler was just another racist lout as far as his writing's concerned.

I had to read it for a class. It was like reading an 800 page YouTube Comments Section rant.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 18:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread Part The IVth: sir, my ass is flowing like Sun Tzu's army

«‹›500 »