Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Ensign Expendable
Nov 11, 2008

Lager beer is proof that god loves us
Pillbug
You confiscate all the weird poo poo your guys accumulated and replace it with authorized equipment when the unit is pulled out to refit. Until then trying to prevent enlisted men from pocketing something cool they found is an impossible task.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fangz
Jul 5, 2007

Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!
Picking up gear is one thing, ditching his rifle is quite another, though...?

Chillyrabbit
Oct 24, 2012

The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet



Ultra Carp
They seemed to already be stranded behind enemy lines (due to their bridgehead collapsing), so the officers he was with probably didn't give that much of a poo poo if he dropped his rifle.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Germans were also way, way freer about using enemy equipment than most other militaries. I'm pretty sure I've talked in here about the Beutwaffen codes and how they actually gave German military designations to foreign gear. The Maschinenpistole 717(r) was the PPSh in German service, for example. This was done on an ad-hoc basis by people near the front just using poo poo they found, of course, but it was also done on a more systemic basis with captured weapons and ammo collected and re-issued, usually to rear echelon areas. A ton of reserve / occupation units in France were armed with captured French and Polish weapons, for example, and a lot of the local E. European auxiliaries who did some of the heavy lifting in the Holocaust were armed with Soviet rifles.

Of course not all of it was rear-area only. SMGs and semi-auto rifles in particular got a lot of work at the front, and the Germans if anything had a higher opinion of the SVT-40 than the Russians did.

None of which really applies to this case, but the larger point is that a German soldier ditching his rifle and grabbing Soviet weapon isn't something that would make monocles pop. I mean, usually you'd probably want the rifle back into circulation, but obviously the level of give a gently caress for that when you're cut off and wandering as a small group behind enemy lines is nill.

Tree Bucket
Apr 1, 2016

R.I.P.idura leucophrys
That was a fantastic read, thankyou.

"But at one door someone gave us cake although he told us that he himself had suffered a lot in a German camp. But he had resolved to give something edible to anyone who was hungry and knocked on his front door."

KYOON GRIFFEY JR
Apr 12, 2010



Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22
It was a good read!

I keep meaning to digitize my grandfather's war notes. He typed them up fairly well. He was in a USO outfit, which is a pretty unusual job. Hopefully the post has inspired me to get off my rear end to do it.

Mr. Grapes!
Feb 12, 2007
Mr. who?

Cyrano4747 posted:

Germans were also way, way freer about using enemy equipment than most other militaries. I'm pretty sure I've talked in here about the Beutwaffen codes and how they actually gave German military designations to foreign gear. The Maschinenpistole 717(r) was the PPSh in German service, for example. This was done on an ad-hoc basis by people near the front just using poo poo they found, of course, but it was also done on a more systemic basis with captured weapons and ammo collected and re-issued, usually to rear echelon areas. A ton of reserve / occupation units in France were armed with captured French and Polish weapons, for example, and a lot of the local E. European auxiliaries who did some of the heavy lifting in the Holocaust were armed with Soviet rifles.

Of course not all of it was rear-area only. SMGs and semi-auto rifles in particular got a lot of work at the front, and the Germans if anything had a higher opinion of the SVT-40 than the Russians did.

None of which really applies to this case, but the larger point is that a German soldier ditching his rifle and grabbing Soviet weapon isn't something that would make monocles pop. I mean, usually you'd probably want the rifle back into circulation, but obviously the level of give a gently caress for that when you're cut off and wandering as a small group behind enemy lines is nill.

Yeah, my gramps was in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front and he was actually officially issued a Russian weapon, along with a lot of other guys. He called it a "tommy gun" so I assume it was some form of PPSH.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Mr. Grapes! posted:

Yeah, my gramps was in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front and he was actually officially issued a Russian weapon, along with a lot of other guys. He called it a "tommy gun" so I assume it was some form of PPSH.

Almost certainly. I don't have numbers or anything, but anecdotally the PPSh appears to have been the most commonly issued foreign small arm, at lest in terms of actually being issued to front line troops.

It helps that the ammo was functionally identical to the 7.63 Mauser pistol cartridge (i'm pretty sure it was the cartridge that 7.62 Tokarev was developed from) which means that it wasn't a problem for them to manufacture their own, new ammo for the guns rather than relying only on captured Soviet stores.

Edgar Allen Ho
Apr 3, 2017

by sebmojo

Mr. Grapes! posted:

Yeah, my gramps was in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front and he was actually officially issued a Russian weapon, along with a lot of other guys. He called it a "tommy gun" so I assume it was some form of PPSH.

My grandpa was also there and his descriptions use "pepescha" and "tommy gun" interchangeably so I think this is accurate.

Also talks about "british tommy guns" during his stint in Italy, which I suppose would be a sten gun.

hypnophant
Oct 19, 2012

Perestroika posted:

Since this is the borderline general history thread anyway: I'll be in London in a few weeks, are there any museums or exhibitions particularly worth checking out? I'd imagine the Museum Of London is worth a look, but apart from that?

V&A
Tate Modern
National Gallery
National Portrait Gallery
Also if the weather’s decent, plan on grabbing a coffee and just hanging out for an hour in Trafalgar Square
British Museum
Natural History Museum
Imperial War Museum

i’m a little late to museum chat, but I also want to point out the Hunterian Museum, reopening “spring 2023.” It’s a museum of anatomical samples owned by the Royal College of Surgeons. It’s probably big enough to occupy a lazy afternoon wandering around and gawking at weird poo poo. I went a few years before covid and it’s an extremely cool, bizarre, utterly unique experience. I’m not saying it’s a must see, especially if it’s your first trip to london which has absolutely centuries worth of stuff to experience, but I’m sure there’s someone reading this thread who has never heard of it and is now going to plan a trip to london to check it out.

The Hunterian, by the way, is one of dozens or hundreds of small, specialized, or just eccentric museums in greater london. half of them are just some aristocratic weirdo’s curio cabinet from the 18th century which has somehow survived as a permanent collection. The big museums of london are some of the best in the world, but there’s a huge ecosystem of smaller places which would get top mentions in almost any other city.

madeintaipei
Jul 13, 2012

fartknocker posted:

See also "tommy gun" being used often in Korean War accounts, or even some Western-written stuff of the Russians in World War II, which is almost certainly describing the PPSh with a drum mag.

The Korean War "tommy gun" descriptor can apply to one of a few guns, including the Thompson.

In that timeframe, the Soviets were riding themselves of the PPD and PPS by sending them overseas in large batches. PPSH had also been spread far and wide. These were used by both the DPRK and PRC, and some by the ROK as captured materiél.

The PRC was rather fond of the Thompson at the time, using both old lend-lease, captured, or imported guns, and domestic copies.

There you have four subguns, three of which (Thompson, PPD, PPSH) had drum magazines available. When coming under concentrated fire from close range, every SMG may as well be a Tommy gun.

lil bip
Mar 13, 2004

That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Hello friends.

So I wondered if anyone here, far more knowledgeable than I might help me with a tank ID in a bit more detail. My grandad was a kiwi tanker during ww2, as a radio operator and loader I think.

I was wanting to know if anyone could roughly pinpoint what model the Sherman he called home was.

I scanned a bunch of his photos a while back, so I thought some of you might be interested.

Album
https://www.flickr.com/gp/kineticreality/qbt6C28Q07

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Mr. Grapes!
Feb 12, 2007
Mr. who?

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

My grandpa was also there and his descriptions use "pepescha" and "tommy gun" interchangeably so I think this is accurate.

Also talks about "british tommy guns" during his stint in Italy, which I suppose would be a sten gun.

Yeah I think it is common for modern people who play a lot of games and watch a lot of movies to be really knowledgeable about all this stuff but for the people who were actually there it wasn't as important. Grandpa didn't get to play Call of Duty and fire thousands of rounds out of every single WW2 weapon. He had no idea what the names of the enemy planes flying overhead were, he was more busy hitting the dirt.

I had a "Well Askhully" sort of friend back in highschool who was a big milhist nerd (long before I was) and he was always asking my grandpa stuff and getting annoyed when my grandpa just kind of didn't care about certain details. Like he'd always try to pin down specific details, but according to grandpa, he was a loving teenager and it was cold and wet, one tundra was the same as another.

"What towns in Italy did you see Grandpa Grapes?"

"Hell if I know, they were usually burnt rubble."

yaffle
Sep 15, 2002

Flapdoodle

lil bip posted:

Hello friends.

So I wondered if anyone here, far more knowledgeable than I might help me with a tank ID in a bit more detail. My grandad was a kiwi tanker during ww2, as a radio operator and loader I think.

I was wanting to know if anyone could roughly pinpoint what model the Sherman he called home was.

I scanned a bunch of his photos a while back, so I thought some of you might be interested.

Album
https://www.flickr.com/gp/kineticreality/qbt6C28Q07



Looks like an M4A2 , which was the lend-lease version, later in the album there looks to be firefly as well. That's a great set of pics, although people should watch out for all the dead fascists at the end of page 2, did your grandad take those?

Jobbo_Fett
Mar 7, 2014

Slava Ukrayini

Clapping Larry

lil bip posted:

Hello friends.

So I wondered if anyone here, far more knowledgeable than I might help me with a tank ID in a bit more detail. My grandad was a kiwi tanker during ww2, as a radio operator and loader I think.

I was wanting to know if anyone could roughly pinpoint what model the Sherman he called home was.

I scanned a bunch of his photos a while back, so I thought some of you might be interested.

Album
https://www.flickr.com/gp/kineticreality/qbt6C28Q07



Jobbo_Fett posted:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3785167&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post462873198




The M4 Medium Tank "Sherman"



Production Dates*:

M4: July 1942 - January 1944
M4(105): February 1944 - March 1945
M4A1: February 1942 - December 1943
M4A1(76)W: January 1944 - July 1945
M4A2: April 1942 - May 1944
M4A2(76)W: April 1944 - May 1945
M4A3: June 1942 - September 1943
M4A3(105): May 1944 - June 1945
M4A3(75)W: February 1944 - March 1945
M4A3(76)W: March 1944 - April 1945
M4A3E2: June 1944 - July 1944
M4A3E8(76): August 1944
M4A3E8(105): September 1944
M4A4: July 1942 - November 1943
M4A6: October 1943 - February 1944

*:This information was taken directly from Wikipedia. One source is a dead link and the 2nd doesn't mention all the same info, so take this with a grain of salt.

Shortest production run: M4A3E8 (75) and (105) - 1 month
Lowest production run: M4A6 - 75 examples


Ascending order by production date*:
M4A1
M4A2
M4A3
M4 - M4A4
M4A6
M4A1(76)W
M4(105) - M4A3(75)W
M4A3(76)W
M4A2(76)W
M4A3(105)
M4A3E2
M4A3E8(76)
M4A3E8(105)

*This list created solely with the use of the above-mentioned production dates.


Despite the naming convention, the M4 was not the first Sherman to be produced but the overall design did go through many different iterations and modifications. Throughout it's service life it was up-gunned, reinforced with more armor and re-engined for better mobility. It also used several different types of tracks, had many personal modifications by their crew, and multiple attempts to add more protection for the crew by the crew. So even though the M4 didn't come first, I'll start with it since it was the base design.



M4



The original M4, even though it wasn't the first to be produced, was named that way because it was the first model standardized for production. It was expected that there would be a bottleneck in production of the cast upper hull of the M4A1, which is why it was built. In fact, the M4 and the M4A1 differed only in the hull, the welded hull allowed for the stowage of seven more 75mm rounds than in the cast hull; the M4 had a welded hull and the M4A1 had a cast upper hull with welded sides. All M4's had a Wright R-975-C1 9-cylinder radial engine, driving a 5-speed manual synchromesh transmission with the final drive in the nose of the vehicle. The high-angle hull was a result of the height of the engine and the angled propeller shaft, and the vertical sides were designed to reduce production times. The width of the tank was dictacted by the turret ring, which necessitated full-length sponsons over the tracks and these in turn were used for ammo and equipment storage. The turret was a one-piece cast type with a full turret basket and carried a 75mm M3 L/40, and a .30 M1919A4 LMG as the coaxial gun in the combination mount M34. This arrangement provided an external mantlet for the main gun only. The fixed mantlet had a slot in it to allow the coaxial gun to elevate along with the main armament. The crew of five consisted of: the driver, assistant driver/bow gunner, and commander, gunner and loader in the turret. The gunner was located in the right-front part of the turret, with the commander sitting directly behind him; the loader was on the left side of the turret. There were hatches for the driver, co-driver and commander. Getting out of the turret in an emergency was a problem. Early production M4's still had some remnants of the M3 Medium Tank's design. For example, they retained the 3-piece transmission cover that was bolted together. The driver and co-driver hatches were located in bow extensions angled 60 degrees and had direct vision slots with armor visors. The tracks were usually a plain rubber block track. The rear of the tank had double doors to access the engine. Soon after production began, experiences in the field with the M4 (And it's earlier produced variants) lead to some changes that would regularly be found on mid-production examples. The suspension changed from the M3's bogies to the M4's Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS), the direct vision slots for the (co-)driver were removed and replaced by fixed periscopes in front of the hull hatches, the 3-piece housing for the transmission was changed to a sturdier 1-piece version, and the M34 mount was replaced by the M34A1 mount which had increased protection. Problems with ammunition fires led to the introduction of applique armor, 1" plates that were welded over the 3 sponson ammo bins. On late production M4's, applique armor was also applied to the front of the driver and co-driver hatches to improve frontal protection, and some applique armor was usually applied to the turret in front of the gunner. To help conserve rubber, different tracks were introduced. Near the end of the M4's production run, a composite hull was devised using a cast front section welded to rolled plate sides and rear.







M4(105)

One part of the original M4 concept was to have it use a 105mm howitzer as an alternative armament. These, however, weren't produced until late in the war, from '44 on. Because they appeared so late in the production run of their respective variant, they had the improvements built-in straight from the factory. Late production M4(105)'s had the Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) and wider tracks, as well as a new commander cupola. It featured the late welded-hull M4 with a single-piece glacis. Ammunition storage for the 105mm howitzer was 66 rounds kept in dry stowage racks on the hull floor. Another interesting thing to note is that the hatches for the driver and co-driver are the larger type, making it easier to enter and exit the vehicle. An easy way to tell the M4 from the (105) variant is the additional blower dome at the rear of the turret, just above the radio.


M4A1



The first Shermans to roll out of the factory was of the M4A1 type. As with early M4 Medium Tanks: the M4A1 had direct vision doors, M3-style suspension, T41 rubber block-style tracks, narrow M34 gun mount. On really early M4A1's, the T6's twin hull MG mounts were still in place but were rarely, if ever, used. The M4A1 had an all cast hull save the 3-piece transmission housing. Like the M4, the A1 variant had its direct vision doors removed and the front upper hull was modified to provide a lot more protection. Again, rubber tracks were removed in order to save on the scarce resource, with new all-metal tracks being used. Track extensions, called "Duck Bills", were used in order to reduce ground pressure and thus improving flotation on soft ground. Applique armor was also used on the M4A1, again welded to the side sponsons to protect the ammunition, and a small plate was added to the turret in front of the gunner. That small plate was eventually thickened in the original casting rather than adding a welded armor plate. It should be noted that all these different modifications were incorporated at different times, which production plant, and even which armor depot the tank was located at. This lead to some odd combinations of features, and even stranger mixes within combat units.




M4A1(76)W



In January 1944, changes were made and incorporated to the M4A1 Sherman in order to upgrade it's combat efficiency. The hatches for the frontal hull crewmembers were enlarged, an all new turret based on the one developed for the T23 Medium Tank was installed using the new M1A1 76mm gun. The first 76mm guns didn't have any provisions for a muzzle brake. The ammunition used for this new gun was stored in the new wet storage racks in the lower hull. Later examples had a modified loader's hatch and different guns - the M1A2 and A3 versions.


M4A2



The main difference of the M4A2 from previous models is the use of a diesel-powered engine, the General Motors 6046. The Army resisted the idea of a diesel-fuelled tank as it would complicate supply lines, but the Navy, who used diesel in smaller craft, decided to use it. These were subsequently used in the Pacific theatre of operations. Interestingly, the Fisher tank arsenal produced a series of M4A2's which replaced the cast hull components will rolled steel plate and gave it a distinct appearance. Aside from the diesel engines, the M4A2 was a welded-hull tank and used parts identical to the M4 and M4A1, being upgrade as the war progressed in a similar fashion.


M4A2(76)W

Only late production A2's carried the 76mm gun. They were usually supplied to Allied armies via lend-lease rather than used with US forces.


M4A3

By the time the M4A3 was put into production, they had introduced the one-piece cast transmission housing and, as production continued, further improvements were added just like previous models. M4A3's were powered by the Ford GAA Petrol V-8 engine due to a shortage of Continental radial engines. One of my books uses the M4A3 to talk about the ammunition issues.

The solution they came up with was the addition of applique armor over the 3 most exposed ammunition bins as well as the two hull crewmember positions as they were nearly vertical compared to the 60 degree angled hull.

Interestingly, the engine was more compact than other models and the Sherman's profile could've been lowered but the need to avoid any interruption in production meant that they opted out of changing the hull. The M4A3 was the most common Sherman and was also the type to be retained for use post-war.




M4A3(105)

The 105mm-armed Shermans were often used as self-propelled artillery and it wasn't uncommon to see them with ammunition trailers when acting as an artillery piece. Since they also weren't expected to combat other tanks, most did not have the applique armor, and had dry stowage for their munitions.


M4A3(75)W



The W stands for "Wet Stowage"


M4A3(76)W

As with other (76) types, it was upgunned to the 76mmm M1A1 gun (And eventually the M1A1C and M1A2 gun). The 76mm gun provided approx. 1 inch of added penetration at comparable ranges, although the H.E. shell performed worse than the 75mm gun which is why it was continued.


M4A3E2

To fill in the role of an assault vehicle, it was deemed possible, with some modifications to the new 47 degree hull on the M4A3, to fulfill this rolse. The resulting tank had an additional 1 and 1/2 inches of armor plating added to the glacis and the sides for a total of 4 and 3 inches, respectively. The final drive housing was changed to a thicker version of up to 5 and a half inches. It retained the 75mm gun as the H.E. shell performed better, but the turret itself was much better protected with 6 inch thick armor on the sides and two and a half inches at the rear. The gun shield had an additional plate added to it which increased the thickness to 7 inches. The suspension had a hard time coping with all the added weight and, as a result, it wasn't uncommon to see a variety of different roadwheels. Some Jumbos were re-armed to have the 76mm gun.


M4A3E8(76)

The Easy Eight's began as a way to improve the Shermans cross-country capabilities and lower overall ground pressure. This led to the Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) and how the E8 got it's nickname. When troops started to receive the new tank, they found the ride so greatly improved that the name "Easy Eight" stuck. The HVSS system used a wider track and was retroactively added to other variants.


M4A3E8(105)

Like other 105mm Howitzer armed M4's mated with the E8's hull and suspension.


M4A4

Another engine modification, the M4A4 used the Chrysler A57 "Multibank" engine. The new engine was longer than previous types and as a result the hull had to be lengthened at the rear. Every A4 was built with the 75mm gun as the armament and were either kept in the States for training or supplied to the British as lend-lease.

M4A6

The A6 type was an experimental look into multi-fuel engines. Using a modified Wright radial engine, it could be fuelled by diesel, 100-octane gasoline, and more. Even though only 75 tanks were built, they were not all the same. Some were built with later turrets while others kept the earlier type. It is easily identified by it's sharp nose where the final drive housing is located. The A6 never saw combat.


Misc. Stuff

Direct vision ports and rear deck


View of small hatches


Early 76mm Turret


Late 76mm Turret


"Jumbo" Turret


Stacking sandbags was a common field modification


Tracks too!


Even cement, in bags or not, was added in some cases

Ensign Expendable
Nov 11, 2008

Lager beer is proof that god loves us
Pillbug

lil bip posted:

Hello friends.

So I wondered if anyone here, far more knowledgeable than I might help me with a tank ID in a bit more detail. My grandad was a kiwi tanker during ww2, as a radio operator and loader I think.

I was wanting to know if anyone could roughly pinpoint what model the Sherman he called home was.

I scanned a bunch of his photos a while back, so I thought some of you might be interested.

Album
https://www.flickr.com/gp/kineticreality/qbt6C28Q07



M4A2 (Sherman III) small hatch. This version has quick-fix ammo stowage improvements applied, a vane sight, and extra storage boxes, so likely it went through the full British refitting process.

Defenestrategy
Oct 24, 2010

What does the defense of Taiwan look like in a theoretical invasion by the PRC? Not that I suspect anyone is privy to high level intelligence or whatever, but notionally from public sources is the ROC assuming that the US will come to the rescue and their defenses and such are a delaying tactic till US PACOM can roll in and do something or is every large enough beach mined to the gills and the island itself is littered with bunkers, caves, air defenses, and such that they are going with the idea they could hold the island from air and sea assault.

Cessna
Feb 20, 2013

KHABAHBLOOOM

Xi Jinping alt account spotted.

Defenestrategy
Oct 24, 2010

Cessna posted:

Xi Jinping alt account spotted.

If I was Xi Jinping, I would not lower myself to post in SomethingAwful. I would tell my intelligence apparatus to do that.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

The cold war thread in TFR (?) regularly debates this issue, I'd ask there or read some of the old conversations about them (they happen monthly)

CommonShore
Jun 6, 2014

A true renaissance man


Defenestrategy posted:

What does the defense of Taiwan look like in a theoretical invasion by the PRC? Not that I suspect anyone is privy to high level intelligence or whatever, but notionally from public sources is the ROC assuming that the US will come to the rescue and their defenses and such are a delaying tactic till US PACOM can roll in and do something or is every large enough beach mined to the gills and the island itself is littered with bunkers, caves, air defenses, and such that they are going with the idea they could hold the island from air and sea assault.

I have a friend from Taiwan who probably 30 years ago now was in the military there and was stationed on an island between Taiwan and the mainland.

His unit's mission n the event of a PRC invasion from the mainland was to survive for 90 seconds.

Xiahou Dun
Jul 16, 2009

We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.



Defenestrategy posted:

What does the defense of Taiwan look like in a theoretical invasion by the PRC? Not that I suspect anyone is privy to high level intelligence or whatever, but notionally from public sources is the ROC assuming that the US will come to the rescue and their defenses and such are a delaying tactic till US PACOM can roll in and do something or is every large enough beach mined to the gills and the island itself is littered with bunkers, caves, air defenses, and such that they are going with the idea they could hold the island from air and sea assault.

Most of the Taiwan is mountainous jungle with the majority of the population living around the coast. It's enough of a pain to move through the center of the island that people generally just don't : it's still mostly inhabited by native minority groups after almost 500 years of Dutch, British, Qing, Japanese and ROC control. I'm not a military guy, but I did live in Taiwan/the ROC for a while and even as a fit young guy who grew up hiking and mountain climbing, the center of the island is an experience if you go off the carefully maintained hiking trails. Your hiking options are "gravel path that involved bulldozers to make" and "cliffs covered in vines and giant spiders".

What I'm saying is I would really, really not suggest fighting against an irregular military force in central Formosa. It's going to be a very bad time.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Probably be spiky enough that they can't just get steamrolled in 48 hours and give international sanctions a chance to do their thing.

Ukraine is a useful example. If Putin's decapitation strike had worked, military resistance collapsed after a few days, and a pro-Kremlin regime was in place in a week then chances are the world would have just accepted it as a fait accompli and not bothered with sanctions etc. Why suffer through a lack of Russian gas, lack of access to Russian/Ukrainian wheat and raw materials (especially the various noble gasses extracted as by-products of the steel industry), and general pain in the rear end if it was a done deal? But Ukraine held out, Russia got bogged down, and the political calculus shifted as far as things like sanctions go.

Is this realistic for Taiwan? :shrug: Beats me. But I doubt China wants to find out what Russia-scale sanctions look like, and the risk of taking long enough that the US/EU get around to sanctioning isn't something to be sniffed at. Now, this would also really gently caress up a lot of other economies around the world, so I suspect the Chinese are kind of hoping that the US/EU won't be willing take the reciprocal economic pain. That said, the fact that Europe kind of grew a backbone and swallowed a bitter pill re: Russian gas has got to be an unpleasant surprise for Beijing.

edit:

zoux posted:

The cold war thread in TFR (?) regularly debates this issue, I'd ask there or read some of the old conversations about them (they happen monthly)

Lol I legit thought that's what thread I was in when I typed that answer.

edit 2 : and yes, it's in TFR

Defenestrategy
Oct 24, 2010

zoux posted:

The cold war thread in TFR (?) regularly debates this issue, I'd ask there or read some of the old conversations about them (they happen monthly)

Think I'll check it out. Thanks!

The question I was trying to get at was on a continuum of "try to cross this line and find out" is it France/Belgium or Korean DMZ.

Fangz
Jul 5, 2007

Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!
I think you are better off asking Xi what form a Chinese invasion will take. Whether it will be a full PLA committment, whether they want something they can turn around and pretend was just a training exercise, or whether they are huffing their own farts and think if they bomb a bit and send a small taskforce the locals will welcome them with open arms. There's just too much uncertainty.

lil bip
Mar 13, 2004

That ain't workin', that's the way you do it

yaffle posted:

Looks like an M4A2 , which was the lend-lease version, later in the album there looks to be firefly as well. That's a great set of pics, although people should watch out for all the dead fascists at the end of page 2, did your grandad take those?

Oh poo poo, yes I forgot about those.

Yeah I believe he did as he basically went from Egypt through to Italy and then headed home from there I think. He died when I was a kid, so I never got to ask him much about it. I don't believe he talked at all about his experiences with my Dad or my Nan. Just this photo album that I had which all his photos were in and attached descriptions.

Thanks for all the tank info folks, really cool to know!

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Defenestrategy posted:

Think I'll check it out. Thanks!

The question I was trying to get at was on a continuum of "try to cross this line and find out" is it France/Belgium or Korean DMZ.

The main island is sufficiently far from mainland that you don't need a constant readiness, there is time to lay obstacles if PRC starts gathering an invasion force. Meanwhile Kinmen is so close that they are pretty much a tripwire, and so they have a history of being much more trigger happy there.

Tomn
Aug 23, 2007

And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands
Anecdotally, the Taiwanese conscript force is widely regarded as a pointless waste of time in Taiwan, best avoided if possible and basically a place to get bullied around by the professional soldiers.

My father has one story from his time in the force where his unit was stationed on one of the outlying islands as the defense force. They ran a drill where the regulars simulated invading the island, and it fell so fast that there was a minor scandal and the unit was rotated somewhere less important.

Ukraine might be causing people to sit up and take notice again but it'll take a while to change the culture.


Fangz posted:

whether they are huffing their own farts and think if they bomb a bit and send a small taskforce the locals will welcome them with open arms.

To be honest if there is any invasion at all it'd be because Xi has given up on the idea of the Taiwanese peacefully integrating with China so they'll probably avoid THAT idiocy at least.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Hopefully the way the entire world came together to oppose a revanchist invasion in 2021 would inform that decision.

Jobbo_Fett
Mar 7, 2014

Slava Ukrayini

Clapping Larry

zoux posted:

Hopefully the way the entire world came together to oppose a revanchist invasion in 2021 would inform that decision.

2021?

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Look, I have become unstuck in time

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

College Slice

Defenestrategy posted:

What does the defense of Taiwan look like in a theoretical invasion by the PRC? Not that I suspect anyone is privy to high level intelligence or whatever, but notionally from public sources is the ROC assuming that the US will come to the rescue and their defenses and such are a delaying tactic till US PACOM can roll in and do something or is every large enough beach mined to the gills and the island itself is littered with bunkers, caves, air defenses, and such that they are going with the idea they could hold the island from air and sea assault.

One thing to keep in mind as China's capabilities increase, their options also increase. To the point that it might not even look like a D-Day invasion but more of a naval blockade as the PLAN grows in size and capability. The need to quickly take the island dissipates as a priority if the PLAN becomes confident they can keep the USN at arms length.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Raenir Salazar posted:

One thing to keep in mind as China's capabilities increase, their options also increase. To the point that it might not even look like a D-Day invasion but more of a naval blockade as the PLAN grows in size and capability. The need to quickly take the island dissipates as a priority if the PLAN becomes confident they can keep the USN at arms length.

You still need to do it quickly if you want to avoid non-military retaliation.

The Chinese very much would like to have Taiwan, but it's not just stalling out and getting the island relieved by the USN that they need to worry about. Sanctions cut both ways, and it would absolutely suck for both the EU/US and China, but at the end of the day they've got a lot more riding politically on economic stability.

An extended blockade is kind of their worst case scenario, as that gives everyone else PLENTY of time to hem and haw and drum up support for escalating economic pressure.

If they do it what they want and need is a fast take over that makes non-military responses seem pointless.

Fangz
Jul 5, 2007

Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Tomn posted:


To be honest if there is any invasion at all it'd be because Xi has given up on the idea of the Taiwanese peacefully integrating with China so they'll probably avoid THAT idiocy at least.

I think past experience would suggest you should never underestimate the fart huffing ability of a dictator with a cult of personality.

FastestGunAlive
Apr 7, 2010

Dancing palm tree.
War on the Rocks has had some good pieces on China-Taiwan the last few years

wiegieman
Apr 22, 2010

Royalty is a continuous cutting motion


Dropping explosives on Taiwan is a good way to wreck TSMC etc., and thus your whole reason for being there.

Slim Jim Pickens
Jan 16, 2012
That's not why China "wants" Taiwan, they see the possibility of Taiwan being used as a military base outside China as a big deal. Particularly because Taiwan as a political entity is just the old government of China from a civil war that hasn't properly ended.

Gnoman
Feb 12, 2014

Come, all you fair and tender maids
Who flourish in your pri-ime
Beware, take care, keep your garden fair
Let Gnoman steal your thy-y-me
Le-et Gnoman steal your thyme




Even that's a secondary reason. They want Taiwan because they believe it is legitimately part of their country and being wrongfully held by a bandit government.

That doesn't make their claims valid, but it can't be dismissed either.

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"

wiegieman posted:

Dropping explosives on Taiwan is a good way to wreck TSMC etc., and thus your whole reason for being there.

China's interest in Taiwan is far more ideological than practical.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Offler
Mar 27, 2010

Cessna posted:

Xi Jinping alt account spotted.

Leaked video from Jinping's side hustle as a Youtuber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX5hcbzZCow

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply