|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think this is fundamentally against the point of the thread though. No one will ever learn anything if they're discouraged from asking potentially silly questions; and this thread has generally been capable of respectfully considering alt history questions in the past; questions like, "Could the Germans have actually have taken Moscow?" actually have substantial answers to them that no one will ever truly learn the answer to if they're shut down from asking questions. The comparison you made with my wuxia question was definitely seems to be an unfair comparison to make because even if Wuxia films tend to depict fictional events I'm pretty sure they do draw allusions to actual historical events and asking about the historical basis to a work of fiction isn't unreasonable or fantastical in the least. You asked a silly question and I pointed out why it is silly and unknowable. I'm not sure what you want, as there isn't a good answer to it. Sometimes the answer to a silly question is "you asked a silly question, and here is why." Frankly I consider the questions about whether it was possible for the Germans to take Moscow to be a bit silly as well, but crucially that's also asking about events that only diverge from the historical a little bit . What would have to change in a few key months to put the Germans in Moscow is something where you can kind of squint and make educated guesses based on the historical record. When you're jumping forward five years post-war to ask about 1950s Nazi fighter development you're so off the beaten track that even that is impossible. No one here is being a dick. Getting told your question is a silly question isn't being an rear end, it's just being honest with why you need go back and take a look at what questions you're asking.
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You can't look at the useful and informative posts the question nevertheless generated and make this assertion with a straight face to be honest. Maybe the onus isn't on me to ask less silly questions but for people to be less dickish. Oh I'm sorry, were you the one who just spent forty minutes of a beautiful morning (One that happens to be on one's last weekend day before they're going to be working 7 days straight) answering a question, tapping out an answer on a phone screen while double-checking sources? No? Then how about you gently caress right off with that entitled-rear end attitude. If you ask a stupid question, and I spend time asking it, it is perfectly within my rights to tell you it's a dumb as hell question. I don't care how much "discussion" it "generates" Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The comparison you made with my wuxia question was definitely seems to be an unfair comparison to make because even if Wuxia films tend to depict fictional events I'm pretty sure they do draw allusions to actual historical events and asking about the historical basis to a work of fiction isn't unreasonable or fantastical in the least. ????????????????????? This is a mind-boggling bad point. "My weird alt-history question isn't a time-waster because I also have questions about what if Ming dynasty but also wizards." Also note that wuxia has "historical allusions" in the same way that like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter does.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You asked a silly question and I pointed out why it is silly and unknowable. I'm not sure what you want, as there isn't a good answer to it. To add one more thing to this: From a pedagogical standpoint, the old expression "there's no such thing as a dumb question" is nonsense. Of course there are dumb or bad questions. You're going to have questions that ask something that is inappropriate for the discipline that is being asked to answer it. Asking what a giraffe would be like if it was a fish is a bad question for a zoologist, but might be a perfectly fine question for an artist. "What is the nature of evil" isn't a question a historian can answer, although it's certainly fair game for a philosopher. Now, the pedagogical goal behind that old saying is to make students confident enough to ask questions, even if they're bad or dumb. This is because there is real learning to be had in explaining why the question is dumb/bad/inappropriate. God knows I did that enough back when I taught. "That isn't a question that history can really answer, because. . . " is where you pivot the bad question into a good answer that illuminates something about history as a discipline.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Would a better question be asking just how hosed Germany would have been without the Allies help in rebuilding it after 1945? Like if the Allies just stopped bombing and attacking in 1945, and didn't offer any help rebuilding, I assume Germany would have still basically totally collapsed and barely be in shape to feed its people, let alone build new cutting edge jets.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:As far as political meddling goes, Hitler famously demanded that the 262 be a fighter-bomber for his own insane Hitler reasons. I think this is one of those instances where Hitler accidentally stumbles onto what will much later be considered a common military truth (that a single multi-role combat platform is the optimal solution for most countries) but is wrong because he doesn't understand any of the technical detail of why this is a bad idea to try to implement right now.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:It was a good aircraft for the time, with some genuinely innovative features like its swept wing design. Wasn't the wing on the 262 effectively not swept? IIRC, they adopted the design to fix balance issues, but the angle was shallow enough that it was aerodynamically a straight-wing design.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think this is fundamentally against the point of the thread though. No one will ever learn anything if they're discouraged from asking potentially silly questions; and this thread has generally been capable of respectfully considering alt history questions in the past; questions like, "Could the Germans have actually have taken Moscow?" actually have substantial answers to them that no one will ever truly learn the answer to if they're shut down from asking questions. The comparison you made with my wuxia question was definitely seems to be an unfair comparison to make because even if Wuxia films tend to depict fictional events I'm pretty sure they do draw allusions to actual historical events and asking about the historical basis to a work of fiction isn't unreasonable or fantastical in the least. this isn't an alt hist or a fantasy thread so ask those questions elesewhere
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You asked a silly question and I pointed out why it is silly and unknowable. I'm not sure what you want, as there isn't a good answer to it. So I didn't actually say anything about alternate history until my second post to provide context; the difference in tone is quite stark between those two posts; there were no problems at all in answering that question as originally phrased, but after I gave the additional context; things just took a 180? I didn't say that was being a dick to be clear, but that it was off putting. Because it feels like I'm being castigated personally for asking the question; when I don't think these sorts of questions have ever really been a problem before. There's a very big difference I think in saying "Well it's a little bit silly and unknowable/hard to answer but here's my best guess." and well, "This question is as stupid as your other question" which was the tone I basically read that as and was asking clarification for and I basically took your response as confirmation that was the tone it was meant to be conveyed as? If I read it wrong please absolutely let me know. Additionally, I don't think the question at its core is any more ahistorical than asking about Moscow because the question is about materials science and industrial capacity; things that can be extrapolated like Japanese aircraft carrier production as context for the Battle of Midway or why invading Hawaii was never on the table. Because it isn't that these questions are only "slightly" ahistorical, it is that there exists a body of evidence, hard numbers often like the tank losses during Operation Typhoon, or geographical details like the Moscow subway system, that makes them actually answerable to a substantial degree. "Could the Germans have produced an airframe comparable with the F-86 with enough time?" isn't a totally different kind of question. And to be clear as I said, it isn't being a dick to say it's a silly question. I specifically felt that sentence took it a bit too far for the reason explained above and Acebuckeye's response of well, "If you don't want to be insulted don't do things that get you insulted" just annoyed me at the wrong time. quote:Now, the pedagogical goal behind that old saying is to make students confident enough to ask questions, even if they're bad or dumb. This is because there is real learning to be had in explaining why the question is dumb/bad/inappropriate. God knows I did that enough back when I taught. "That isn't a question that history can really answer, because. . . " is where you pivot the bad question into a good answer that illuminates something about history as a discipline. I get what you're saying here but I don't think my question was that silly or out of bounds for what has typically been within this threads wheelhouse. And also being a thread on a semi-public comedy internet forum, does it not make sense you want to err on the side of people asking questions as long as it isn't Just Asking Questions? Acebuckeye13 posted:Oh I'm sorry, were you the one who just spent forty minutes of a beautiful morning (One that happens to be on one's last weekend day before they're going to be working 7 days straight) answering a question, tapping out an answer on a phone screen while double-checking sources? No? Then how about you gently caress right off with that entitled-rear end attitude. If you ask a stupid question, and I spend time asking it, it is perfectly within my rights to tell you it's a dumb as hell question. I don't care how much "discussion" it "generates" I want to say for what its worth that of course I appreciate the time spend in answering a question, and I also want to point out that you also actually didn't act on what you're saying is in your rights here that I could see. There was nothing I found or took any issue with how you responded to me. I got annoyed at the sentiment of your post of " If you don't want to be insulted by people dismissing your questions as fantastical, ask less fantastical questions." so I'm sorry if it seemed like I was saying you were acting like a dick, I didn't intend for that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Cat Wings posted:Would a better question be asking just how hosed Germany would have been without the Allies help in rebuilding it after 1945? Like if the Allies just stopped bombing and attacking in 1945, and didn't offer any help rebuilding, I assume Germany would have still basically totally collapsed and barely be in shape to feed its people, let alone build new cutting edge jets. As luck would have it we had a natural experiment that answered that question: W. Germany vs. E. Germany. The areas under Soviet occupation (along with the rest of Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe) did not benefit from the Marshal Plan because the Soviets refused the aid. You can look at East Germany at basically any point between 1945 and 1989 and see a rough idea of what recovery would have looked like in the West without that aid. It doesn't explain everything, of course. There are other factors that come in by the time the Berlin Wall falls but it's a huge factor and doubly so if you're looking at the 50s and 60s. It was significant enough that West German economic growth in the late 50s outpaced the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Didn't also the Soviets take a lot of industrial equipment from their occupation zone? Did the Allies happen to not do that? If that's different I imagine that also affects how effective the Marshall Plan is because maybe there's more infrastructure with which to distribute that aid.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So I didn't actually say anything about alternate history until my second post to provide context; the difference in tone is quite stark between those two posts; there were no problems at all in answering that question as originally phrased, but after I gave the additional context; things just took a 180? I didn't say that was being a dick to be clear, but that it was off putting. Because it feels like I'm being castigated personally for asking the question; when I don't think these sorts of questions have ever really been a problem before. You're reading a lot into poo poo. Maybe I was a bit more blunt in the first response than you would have liked, but *shrug* I'm not sitting in a lecture hall I'm posting on an online forum. Your question was fundamentally a bad what-if. That's not a good history question. Plenty of people get told that alt-hist doesn't make for a good history question, usually around round 1000 of another iteration of "so how could Germany have won ww2?" I mean, the whole gay black hitler meme exists for that reason. People have been told "alt hist isn't history, there's fundamentally no way to know" for so long and across so many iterations of this thread that we've developed our own shorthand for it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Didn't also the Soviets take a lot of industrial equipment from their occupation zone? Did the Allies happen to not do that? If that's different I imagine that also affects how effective the Marshall Plan is because maybe there's more infrastructure with which to distribute that aid. Both sides either took equipment or destroyed facilities early on. An easy example that's near and dear to my own heart is the destruction of the Mauser factory in Oberndorf am Neckar by the French in iirc 1946 (might have been 47), and the shipment of all the machinery off to France. Plenty of other examples. Read up on the Morgenthau Plan for what one of the big arguments for how to totally de-industrialize Germany was. That was pretty much abandoned by 1947, at which point you have a 180 and major investment in building West Germany (and Austria) back up alongside the rest of non-Nazi Western Europe. I forget when the Soviets stopped confiscating equipment and dismantling industry, but I don't think it was for at least a couple of years after that. They offered it for Eastern Europe too, but Stalin refused and made refusal compulsory for non-USSR countries in the Eastern bloc.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Cat Wings posted:Would a better question be asking just how hosed Germany would have been without the Allies help in rebuilding it after 1945? Like if the Allies just stopped bombing and attacking in 1945, and didn't offer any help rebuilding, I assume Germany would have still basically totally collapsed and barely be in shape to feed its people, let alone build new cutting edge jets. I don't have my copy to hand for exact figures, but one thing Tony Judt's Postwar points out is how large and desperate the DP population in Germany was in the moments after surrender, and how much aid was viewed as a necessity to forestall them from politically organizing/becoming militant. Conversely Judt talks about how restive the British public became as their rationing deepened to feed the continent. Cyrano4747 posted:50 loving hours between engine overhauls and that was with the GOOD version that used all the fancy materials, and then they made a poo poo ton with low quality steel that had half the life. Looking at a sectioned Jumo really drives this home
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You're reading a lot into poo poo. Thanks, I appreciate it. Again though, I really don't see "Was the Me-262 comparable to the F-86/Mig-17?" or "Could have the Germans have eventually produced something comparable to the F-86" as being that fundamentally that silly or bad of a what if. I think you maybe read a bit too much from my follow up post where I merely mentioned the inspiration for the question which was again, only meant to provide context; I wasn't actually asking that sort of what if question.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Somewhere in the Me262 discussion there was mention of the strategic bombing impacting aircraft production. Is there a consensus among historians about how effective the combined bomber offensive was in accelerating the course of the war? And if not a consensus, is there a view that has majority support?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
"Was the Me-262 capable of fighting late MiG-15s or the F-86?" No, see [inserted table of data regarding speeds, altitudes, serviceability, etc] Instead, we get "WELL OF loving COURSE NOT THE GERMANS HAD NO REAL PRODUCTION TO SPEAK OF IN APRIL 1945 ~~~ IDIOT!"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Thanks, I appreciate it. It is important to note that you are asking two questions in this paragraph, one of which can be reasonably answered and one of which cannot. Was the me262 comparable to the F-86? can be answered as both existed and can be compared. Could the Germans have produced the F-86 eventually? cannot be reasonably answered because the conditions for that to occur never actually happened. As an absurdity one could say that the answer is "yes" because 2022 Germany could probably build an F-86 and 2022 could be considered "eventually". Most of us would consider that a pretty silly and not very interesting answer but it is important to note that any other answers to that question are actually equally as silly. A_Bluenoser fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:It is important to note that you are asking two questions in this paragraph, one of which can be reasonably answered and one of which cannot. I mean, it depends. If for example to make something comparable to the performance of the F-86, required specialized alloys that the Germans could not reliably produce; that'd be one way of answering the question without needing to examine the question of how they'd somehow get the time to pursue it. So you have a range of possibilities of "No" to "Well maybe"; and looking at the USSR we sorta have an example of a nation going through a comparable level of war time pressures to eventually produce to Mig-17, so maybe there's a way of going, "Well the Soviets got some RR engines at a pretty good time; but otherwise they had to do XYZ, but the Germans at best could maybe do Z"; there's way that made sense in my mind to fish out some sort of interesting/plausible even if not-falsifiable answer. This is why I don't think its that silly, because it is hypothetically an explanation that is still grounded in facts or inference/deduction from facts.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1529164266644942848 I had no idea so many of these bases were named after lovely generals. Besides the, you know, treachery, they were also bad at their jobs. The new namesake of Ft. Polk was a loving badass  He is loving up those Huns quote:The French Army assigned Johnson's regiment to Outpost 20 on the edge of the Argonne Forest in the Champagne region of France, equipping it with French rifles and helmets. While on observation post duty on the night of May 14, 1918, Johnson came under attack by a large German raiding party, which may have numbered up to 36 soldiers. Using grenades, the butt of his rifle, a bolo knife and his bare fists, Johnson repelled the Germans, killing four while wounding others, rescuing Needham Roberts from capture and saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. Johnson suffered 21 wounds during the ordeal. This act of valor earned him the nickname of "Black Death", as a sign of respect for his prowess in combat. Awarded the Croix de Guerre by the French (first American to win the honor) in 1919. Wasn't recognized by his own nation with the MoH until almost 100 years later. zoux fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Somewhere in the Me262 discussion there was mention of the strategic bombing impacting aircraft production. Is there a consensus among historians about how effective the combined bomber offensive was in accelerating the course of the war? And if not a consensus, is there a view that has majority support? The US did an official review during the war that still mostly holds up to scrutiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...20the%20survey. If anything it's a little bearish and doesn't take into account how much the war hit European calorie consumption (with attacks on rail links being a large factor). As the wiki summary notes, the problem Germany had wasn't so much that it couldn't mass produce tanks and aircraft, it was that it had no fuel to drive them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The US did an official review during the war that still mostly holds up to scrutiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...20the%20survey. Looking at that article one thing it doesn't seem to get into or examine is the affect on how Germany allocated finite war time resources: Such as fighter squadrons defending German cities, anti-aircraft guns, and so on. Would that have been of significant contribution towards Germany's defeat? Less planes allocated to the front line, less anti-tank guns available, less shells, and so on?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:"Could have the Germans have eventually produced something comparable to the F-86" 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Are those West German F-86's? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Are those West German F-86's? See, Germany did get the F-86.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Looking at that article one thing it doesn't seem to get into or examine is the affect on how Germany allocated finite war time resources: Such as fighter squadrons defending German cities, anti-aircraft guns, and so on. Would that have been of significant contribution towards Germany's defeat? Less planes allocated to the front line, less anti-tank guns available, less shells, and so on? Sure, it made a difference. It's not all 1:1 since you can't just handwave an 88mm AA gun in Hamburg into an 88mm anti-tank gun in Stalingrad, but it definitely tied up some portion of German production and personnel. Overall I think the post-war wisdom is that while the bombing campaign was an inefficient use of Allied resources, it was just about the only way to do something useful in Europe before 1944.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:This act of valor earned him the nickname of "Black Death", get this dude and simo hayha together in a buddy cop drama. throw in the dude who ate his whole squad's meth stash for good measure
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Sure, it made a difference. It's not all 1:1 since you can't just handwave an 88mm AA gun in Hamburg into an 88mm anti-tank gun in Stalingrad, but it definitely tied up some portion of German production and personnel. Overall I think the post-war wisdom is that while the bombing campaign was an inefficient use of Allied resources, it was just about the only way to do something useful in Europe before 1944. It did hammer a few things specifically. The attacks on oil refining were probably some of the most effective non-nuclear use of strategic air in the war. There's also an argument made that it DID damage german manufacturing in that the rate of production never increased as much as it would have without the bombing. So even though 1944 production is (making up numbers as an example) 120% of 1942 production, it's still not the 150% it would have been otherwise. These arguments can get pretty technical, both in terms of the manufacturing tech and in terms of economics methodologies, so I don't really have any basis to critique that. I'll just say that it seems plausible, but by the end of the war they still had plenty of aircraft, for example, but were low on fuel and pilots so at the end of the day does it really matter how many airplanes they were making?  The other one that comes up a lot is hitting rail and other communications. Late war German industry was just fuuucked when it came to getting parts from sub-contractors. I mostly know about this via small arms, but by the time you get into late 1944 the problem is bad enough that factories are dipping into stocks of previously rejected parts because their shipment of widgets from the subcontractor 150 miles down the road didn't show up. Again, this gets into the larger question of whether or not the effort was worth the result. By late '44 the writing is on the wall, and ultimately they had plenty of small arms at that point in the war. Ironically, not in 1941, though. They faced a very real rifle squeeze then, when their industry wasn't being bombed at all. The other major argument you see is that by bombing they forced the Luftwaffe to come up and engage the allied airforces, and in turn that lead to its destruction. By D-Day the Luftwaffe is a shell of its former self and by late '44 it's combat ineffective except for when they concentrate forces to do something specific on the eastern front. Between 1942 and 1944 you have a LOT of pilots get killed going up to try and stop the bombers, and that's what ultimately kills off German airpower.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
It's also not surprising given that this was the first time anyone had ever tried to do strategic bombing seriously so you would expect it to be inefficient as data is gathered through trial and error. Factories? It turns out that machine tools are quite durable. Urban depopulation? Makes people miserable but doesn't actually have decisive effects. Transport links? Very easy to damage and has critical effects when you do, but also easy to repair - also arguably not a strategic bomber target. Oil? Everything needs oil and it burns. But nobody actually knows before the war what these bombers are actually capable of or what is actually the lynchpin of a war economy that causes the most harm to target.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
If you were in charge of the allied bombing campaign's target selection, knowing what you know today, what would you do differently? Here the assumption is that they're gonna bomb something, and your goal is to just choose targets that will hasten the end of Nazi Germany as effectively as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Hrm, that begs an interesting question then, what distinguishes Wuxia from Xianxia? I thought the latter was more "fantasy" while the former was more grounded or is it more about the tropes involved? Wuxia: the magic is people being able to carry out impossible feats of strength and agility (e.g balancing on the tip of your opponent’s weapon mid-battle; travelling by running up the side of a sheer cliff) or manipulating your or their internal energy. May involve voluntarily castrating themselves to become more powerful. Everyone’s human, even if they have strange powers. Sample writer: Jin Yong. Xianxia: loving fireballs and ghosts and demons and maybe the occasional god. Sample writer: Huanzhulouzhu. E: Quite a lot of Wuxia is expressly historical fiction, grounded in a specific period against a backdrop of specific historical events. EG Lu Ding Ji covers the early Kangxi period. Beefeater1980 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on May 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:If you were in charge of the allied bombing campaign's target selection, knowing what you know today, what would you do differently? Here the assumption is that they're gonna bomb something, and your goal is to just choose targets that will hasten the end of Nazi Germany as effectively as possible. Some details: https://uboat.net/technical/industries.htm
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I recall reading there were only two factories in all of occupied Europe that made the special batteries that the U-Boats used, and that blowing them up would have more or less crippled German submarine operations, but the US/UK never identified them as the source of German submarine batteries and they mistakenly assumed one of the other plants they bombed was the source of sub batteries (it actually made batteries for railroads) so the Germans had batteries for their U-Boats right up until the end of the war. Interesting! Shutting down U-boat operations would be a big deal, of course. How hard would it be to adapt other batteries to U-boat use, though? And (much more speculatively) might those U-boats be deployed sans batteries anyway? They'd have nil ability to operate underwater, but who knows, Hitler was crazy and Donetz wasn't necessarily much better...
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:If you were in charge of the allied bombing campaign's target selection, knowing what you know today, what would you do differently? Here the assumption is that they're gonna bomb something, and your goal is to just choose targets that will hasten the end of Nazi Germany as effectively as possible. I remember reading that the German electrical grid was more centralized than the Allies thought, and more aggressive targeting might have had devastating results. I'd spend much less time going after some of the heavy industries. For all the Allied faith in bombing them, it turns out that machine tools are actually very difficult to destroy with high explosives. Sites like ball-bearing factories are just a waste of aircraft and lives.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Interesting! Shutting down U-boat operations would be a big deal, of course. How hard would it be to adapt other batteries to U-boat use, though? And (much more speculatively) might those U-boats be deployed sans batteries anyway? They'd have nil ability to operate underwater, but who knows, Hitler was crazy and Donetz wasn't necessarily much better... A U-boat without batteries is just a Boat. A heavily armed boat, but very slow, and so fragile that a single good hit from any real weapon will take it out. The only difference between sending out a battery-free U-boat and shooting the crew yourself is that the former option gives theme their own coffin.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I remember reading that the German electrical grid was more centralized than the Allies thought, and more aggressive targeting might have had devastating results. I have always wondered why the dam buster raid was not repeated on a larger scale. Also, how does the bombing campaign against Germany compare to the one against Japan?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:get this dude and simo hayha together in a buddy cop drama. throw in the dude who ate his whole squad's meth stash for good measure Black Death, White Death and Meth Death?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
My understanding is that while the allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe was pretty lackluster in direct effect it had the very significant follow on effect of causing the Germans to build out a very dispersed industrial system which given how relatively lovely their logistics and manufacturing system already was, it compounded those problems.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Also is the part about strategic bombing in Tribe by Sebastian Yunger accurate based on current knowledge? His sources argue that strategic/area/terror bombing that intended to lower civilian morale had the exact opposite effect. In general and especially the kind the Germans and British practiced (as well I think US in Japan) was just dangerous enough to inspire hate and make the war feel very very real, build solidarity against the enemy, and inspire people to action but almost never deadly enough to actually lower morale. Wondering if it still holds up or it’s like the SLA Marshall/Dave Grossman thing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:get this dude and simo hayha together in a buddy cop drama. throw in the dude who ate his whole squad's meth stash for good measure and sgt reckless makes 4
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2022 02:16
|
|
