|
I mean, I don't think i've seen a serious military history that would refer to Romania or Hungary as a 'joke' or whatever, mostly in the unfortunate position of being smaller countries in a war that heavily favored economies of scale. The Soviets picked on the Romanians for Uranus because they were less well equipped and largely defending indefensible lines, with very meager reserves at hand(the Romanian 1st armored and half a panzer division for the 3rd army sector). At times, the troops performed well, and at times, they didn't.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, equipment counts for a lot if you don't have it. One reason Italy gets an unfair reputation for having crap soldiers is because they actually had decently good soldiers rocking equipment that was state of the art in 1931. Doesn't matter how much elan you have if you're fighting a Sherman in a tankette. Their elite forces like bersaglieri, parachutists and combat divers were amongst the best of the world, but the rest of their troops weren't very well trained, and also many weren't very eager to fight for Mussolini.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
I vaguely remember reading something about German commanders in Africa being really impressed by Italian machine-gunners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
From what I read, most the minor Axis powers were a "joke" because they didn't even have proper equipment and were pressed into fighting on the Eastern Front by the Germans and their respective fascist governments hoping to get some chunks of the USSR. In typical Nazi fashion they expected these nations to be on the frontlines with the Germans, based on nothing but troop numbers, but very soon found out that was impossible and just relegated them mainly to garrison and rear line duty. The only "foreign troops" that really fought on the frontlines, purposely and not because of line collapses bringing them to the front, were the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht foreign volunteers groups, like the Spanish Blue Division, because they were armed and supplied as German forces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
I'd recommend Jonathan Trigg's "Death on the Don", which is a look at the advance to the Don and then Operations Saturn and Uranus, with a focus on the armies of Germany's allies. So it goes into the development of these armies, their composition, their level of training, their motivation, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:I vaguely remember reading something about German commanders in Africa being really impressed by Italian machine-gunners. This seems odd given the standard LMG of the Italian army was the Breda 30 which was one of the worst guns of the war. Specifically: - it was a squad machine gun that not only was magazine rather than belt fed (not unusual for the time) but had a fixed magazine of 20 rounds - you had to reload it with stripper clips which was obviously a lot slower even than switching the magazines on something like a BAR - the action was very violent and could rupture cases as they extracted, which could jam the gun in a way that's very hard to fix - because of the above problem the feed automatically oiled cartridges as they were fed...which proved a huge problem in North Africa since sand and dust resulted in the guns gunking up constantly
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Welp, today is the day a lot of the nazi memorabilia from my grandfather goes to the US WW2 museum. It feels strange, but eh, it's a relief to not be a caretaker of this poo poo anymore. Let it gain dust in a soggy basement until some grad student needs to write something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd refer to the Ustaše as a joke in anything other than most morbid sense. They were so astonishingly violent and destructive that even the Nazis were taken aback. When one genociding group looks at another genociding group and goes "ho-ly gently caress", that makes my eyes pop a little.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:From what I read, most the minor Axis powers were a "joke" because they didn't even have proper equipment and were pressed into fighting on the Eastern Front by the Germans and their respective fascist governments hoping to get some chunks of the USSR. In typical Nazi fashion they expected these nations to be on the frontlines with the Germans, based on nothing but troop numbers, but very soon found out that was impossible and just relegated them mainly to garrison and rear line duty. The only "foreign troops" that really fought on the frontlines, purposely and not because of line collapses bringing them to the front, were the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht foreign volunteers groups, like the Spanish Blue Division, because they were armed and supplied as German forces. That's not strictly true. There were German documents suggesting things like breaking up their divisions and spreading them out throughout the wehrmacht as well as trying to integrate a german battalion to 'stiffen' the divisions, but the Germans always wanted bodies to throw into the front. Hitler asked the satellite powers to provide greater commitments for his stalingrad operation because he knew he needed the men. Of course there was a risk in using them to hold long stretches of the front, but that risk had to be taken for the operation. Romania, Hungary, and Italy all significantly increased their contingents in Russia to accomodate. In 1942, the war in Africa is in doubt, and quality italian units are being diverted to fill out the CSIR in Russia. The shock of the losses during Uranus caused what amounted to a withdrawal from the war in Romania in 1943- they still had troops but they took so many losses that it took another year to field a viable force to defend the country's frontier and provide a garrison in Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
E-50 and E-75 development Big articles queue: Pre-war and early war British tank building, BT-7M/A-8 trials, Jagdtiger suspension, Light Tank T37, Light Tank T41, T-26-6 (SU-26), Voroshilovets tractor trials, Israeli armour 1948–1982, T-64's composite armour, Evolution of German tank observation devices, Oerlikon and Solothurn anti-tank rifles, Gun Motor Carriage T12/M3, King Tigers in Hungary, German King Tiger losses in December of 1944 in Hungary, Tiger (P) Typ 102, T-55 underwater driving equipment, T-34 tanks with M-17 engines, Wartime and post-war anti-tank hand grenades, Soviet "Tigers" in movies Available for request (others' articles):  Shashmurin's career  GMC T48 GMC M3  7.62 cm F.K.(r) auf gp. Selbstfahrlafette (Sd.Kfz. 6/3) Sd.Kfz.254  44M Tas  Abbot Small articles queue: why the Panther couldn't replace the Pz.Kpfw.IV, Jerry cans in Soviet service Small articles available: linked because the list is too long New small articles: GAZ-70 Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.G
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:This seems odd given the standard LMG of the Italian army was the Breda 30 which was one of the worst guns of the war. Specifically: It more likely refers to the Breda 37 which was considered fairly reliable if rather heavy. Or maybe it's just about the quality of the troops?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 17:05
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Welp, today is the day a lot of the nazi memorabilia from my grandfather goes to the US WW2 museum. It feels strange, but eh, it's a relief to not be a caretaker of this poo poo anymore. Let it gain dust in a soggy basement until some grad student needs to write something. The Father Ted scenario is also a thing of the past.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It more likely refers to the Breda 37 which was considered fairly reliable if rather heavy. I'm wondering how you can tell the quality of a very good machine gunner with a poo poo machine gun tbh. One of those military philosophy questions
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
The betterness of machinegunners is measured by how quickly they can disassemble and reassemble their gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm wondering how you can tell the quality of a very good machine gunner with a poo poo machine gun tbh. One of those military philosophy questions It mostly comes down to how fast they can reposition. One of the things the Germans did very well was move machine guns around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Gamers and armchair generals put too much emphasis on weapon differencies. The Soviets would have marched to Berlin even if they had had Breda M30s instead of Degtryarevs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:Gamers and armchair generals put too much emphasis on weapon differencies. The Soviets would have marched to Berlin even if they had had Breda M30s instead of Degtryarevs. There's exceptions though where weapon differences had major impact.  "The introduction of needle guns to Reuss-Schleiz-Greiz-Lobenstein-Eberndorf 1. A new rifle - 2. loaded from behind - 3. without cock - 4. it requires new regulations." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Hmm I seem to have caught up with this thread after ~200 pages or so. Already having withdrawal symptoms. Also what happened to HEY GAL? I want to tell them hi and sorry for not keeping in touch but now I have a kid and a second on the way haha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There's exceptions though where weapon differences had major impact. lmao that the vince meme is 170 years old
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Hmm I seem to have caught up with this thread after ~200 pages or so. HEY GUNS is still active on the Discord but as far as I know he no longer posts on the forums
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Speaking of the Axis minor countries, I always thought it must've sucked to be Romanian in the 30s and 40s. First you have a poo poo of a king, then two of the biggest motherfuckers on Earth decide to take bites out of your country, and then you end up fighting on the losing side under a bunch of fascist shitheels
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Gort posted:Speaking of the Axis minor countries, I always thought it must've sucked to be Romanian in the 30s and 40s. First you have a poo poo of a king, then two of the biggest motherfuckers on Earth decide to take bites out of your country, and then you end up fighting on the losing side under a bunch of fascist shitheels It doesn't end there, you know  you then end up fighting for the other motherfucker. Though against the Hungarians, so maybe it's a condolence prize? Apart from the bit that fighting in the Carpathians in the winter sucks.
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It doesn't end there, you know The Romanian 9th cav was one of the better assault groups in the siege of Budapest and they yanked the unit just before the victory parade out of spite. The USSR was a very gracious ally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Not to mention that in Romania, after you die fighting nazis, you go down in history as "Axis ally, loved Hitler" while Finland gets to be "totally separate war coincidentally happening the same time as Hitler's war, no Axis here, rip hero soldiers"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
And then once the forties are done you end up under an ugly communist dictatorship. …. and then you end up with Nicolae Ceaușescu.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
Natty Ninefingers posted:And then once the forties are done you end up under an ugly communist dictatorship. On the other hand, you get to lay claim to the heaviest building on Earth!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
At least they have a cool language
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, equipment counts for a lot if you don't have it. One reason Italy gets an unfair reputation for having crap soldiers is because they actually had decently good soldiers rocking equipment that was state of the art in 1931. Doesn't matter how much elan you have if you're fighting a Sherman in a tankette. This seems... partially true? Italy was getting its rear end kicked by Greece before the Germans bailed them out, and the Greek wasn't notably better equipped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:This seems... partially true? The Italians spent 1940 convinced that the war was basically over and they could do whatever and get a piece of the prize. As a consequence, they did a bunch of extremely stupid moves like park a bunch of immobile infantry in the Libyan Desert and attack Greece through the horrible mountains on the Albanian border. The WWII were defined by their equipment though, because it was a war of systems rather than individuals. What made "good soldiers" was the greater military around them, and these were decisions made over time, faraway, and speak little to individual bravery or skill. People don't like to frame things this way because it removes their ability to take national pride in violence, but the truth is that the people were the same as ever, most people are decently brave/competent and give a good account of themselves under duress, but these human qualities don't matter much in an industrial war. You're just a number, assigned to a tool, and almost any performance you pull off is lost to the law of averages. Strategy trumps tactics, tactics trumps heroes. Most of the Axis allies were poor countries operating WWI militaries, they didn't have very much capabilities other than defending a line. To be fair, this was true for most German infantry units as well. Unlike the Germans, they didn't have much in the way of strong armoured formations, or CAS, advanced machine guns, or AT weapons that could even the odds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Not to mention that in Romania, after you die fighting You retire to your castle with your bands of harmful stereotypes to oppress the locals and slake your immortal bloodlust on their daughters. It’s cool, I read this documentary about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Nah, you eat some poor kids sister in desperation to stay alive and accidentally create a serial killer who eats people in the distant future. But he also becomes a doctor! win win?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Italians spent 1940 convinced that the war was basically over and they could do whatever and get a piece of the prize. As a consequence, they did a bunch of extremely stupid moves like park a bunch of immobile infantry in the Libyan Desert and attack Greece through the horrible mountains on the Albanian border. if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have That sounds like the French thought in 1914.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have Was that a part of WWII?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have maintaining an occupation is different to fighting a war, and the morale of a nation is different to the morale of an army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:maintaining an occupation is different to fighting a war, and the morale of a nation is different to the morale of an army. This raises the question, when the did the US Army in Vietnam start to breakdown? The Soldiers sent in 1965 were highly trained and motivated, but by 1970 there was widespread drug abuse, rebellion, and insubordination. Was it just due to the number of draftees being sent in and the uneven turnover of the troops there? Was it because the war had become unpopular at home? Or a confluence of these factors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:if all of this is correct, then why did the us retreat from vietnam? and everyone from afghanistan? morale matters more than what type of machine gun you have If we stick with Slim’s argument “strategy trumps tactics”, the strategy failed both times. Seems to fit
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
I don't think quality of small arms made a massive difference either way during WW2. Provided you're not in a "oops, no more guns/bullets, here have a spear" desperation stakes. Everything more or less averaged out.Comstar posted:That sounds like the French thought in 1914. They were correct. Turning their forces around at the Marne was more important than the relative qualities of the Lebel Model 1886 vs the Gewehr 98. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Feb 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:This raises the question, when the did the US Army in Vietnam start to breakdown? Vietnam was not defined by a massive US military (morale) collapse. The later period of the Vietnam war was in fact much more defined by the significant reduction of the NLF's semi-conventional capability and the expansion of the war into Cambodia and Laos. I'm not going to say everything was perfect in the US military in its last two years in the country, but they were being withdrawn more out of Nixon's policy than anything going on in the army. Nixon didn't feel like Vietnam was worth it and he wanted a reapproachment with China and to have those US forces available for other commitments. In fact, the vision of Vietnam as a war of morale where equipment didn't make a difference is highly absurd to me. If you look at how the last five years of that war played out, it was a matter of money, artillery, armor, and logistics. The NVA was fighting conventional offensives along fairly well-established lines of logistics without the ability to do things like have NLF troops attack Saigon and other cities directly. Fangz posted:I don't think quality of small arms made a massive difference either way during WW2. Provided you're not in a "oops, no more guns/bullets, here have a spear" desperation stakes. Everything more or less averaged out. I do agree with this, though. There's a lot of equipment that was missing(and Romania was actually a fairly wealthy arms importer pre-ww2) that required enormous levels of industrial mobilization to have enough of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Vietnam fundamentally had the same problem as Afghanistan, which is that battlefield dominance doesn't mean anything if you can't convert it into a political solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 12:50
|
|
