|
Somebody must have had a friend at the Pentagon, because they managed to get the Army to run trials back in the day 
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/fab_hinz/status/1785031044120326325 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y&t=251s
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
doesnt every country have underground infrastructure?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:The Precision Shoulder-fired Rocket Launcher-1 also known as the (PSRL-1) is a modified American copy of the Soviet/Russian RPG-7 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenade launcher developed by AirTronic USA. The PSRL-1 is primarily manufactured for US-allied nations who are accustomed to Soviet-style weapons and international export. Piece price?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:doesnt every country have underground infrastructure? No you don’t understand. When we do it, we’re strategic and farsighted making awesome techno-citadels like the vaults from Fallout and it’s a sign of our technological expertise. When they do it, it’s because they’re dishonorable cowards digging hovels in the dirt with their bare hands to hide from our noble air strikes. Think the intro to the Hobbit where Tolkien describes the difference between Hobbit holes and other types of holes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:53
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:The soviets already had a magnified sight for the rpg and there's probably $50 rail adapters out there you could bolt a thermal sight to. They're just using cots pulsar scopes without custom reticles, talk about a grift! bespoked influencer premium consumer warfare
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
the premium warfighter and prolitia consumer remain strong
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:55
|
|
|
I started reading a new book yesterday: "How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II", by Phillips Payson O'Brien the next bit is going to be a very long excerpt, but bear with me, because I promise there is a point.           I could just be reading too much into it, but the following passage, to me, belies a deep-seated insecurity about the narrative of World War 2. Inasmuch as the author tries to say that, no, the book is not about minimizing the contributions of the Soviet Union and the fighting on the Eastern Front, they go on at length about how it would be entirely justified in doing so. Indeed, the entire framing of the book is to explore the idea that air and naval campaigns did more to damage Axis warfighting capability than land battles did - that you couldn't say that "80 percent of the “combat” in the European war occurred on the Eastern Front" if you were to recalibrate your perspective to include the strategic bombing campaigns and the Battle of the Atlantic this book was written in 2015, and it's pushing back against historical consensus that persisted through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, but I think that this quiet seething against the Eastern Front narrative, so to speak, has persisted ever since, and is part of why we're getting the kind of discourse that we're engaged in today, where there's much more direct denialism about the USSR's role in World War II in favor of pushing a hard line on Lend-Lease. It's no longer that the Allies pulled their fair share of the fighting, but also that the USSR couldn't even have won without Allied assistance.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
Hmm let me look up the PLAN building programme compared to the USN… ruh roh
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mercoglianos/status/1785475607310049692 building infrastructure in the us is the domain of the sacred techpriests who create jobs not for mere mortals
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
It's also really funny because the Pacfic war was basically won entirely by the US with some help from the British! If you want to pump yourself up just look at that! But no gotta also tear down the Soviets
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:this book was written in 2015, and it's pushing back against historical consensus that persisted through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, but I think that this quiet seething against the Eastern Front narrative, so to speak, has persisted ever since, and is part of why we're getting the kind of discourse that we're engaged in today, where there's much more direct denialism about the USSR's role in World War II in favor of pushing a hard line on Lend-Lease. It's no longer that the Allies pulled their fair share of the fighting, but also that the USSR couldn't even have won without Allied assistance. this book is also wrong because the basis of material production is manpower and the soviet union is where the nazis went to die. if there are two million more germans in western europe in 1945 there are no landings in italy or france, there is no western war effort at all.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:04
|
|
|
Boxer Rudder with Divers is a weird rear end ship name, but still better than all those that are just a dude’s full name
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
losing 10% of your yearly AFV output in a single battle seems like a big deal to me but what do i know
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:23
|
|
|
Battle of Kursk, famous for only being the first 10 days of the 2 month conflict. Wonder how the other 1,000 tanks were lost in July and August? Also it's interesting that across the 2 months of Kursk they only lost 10% of production. I'm assuming they just stockpiled the difference. Also the production for the other 10 months when there wasn't a famous Armoured battle on, that must have been stockpiled too. The smart nazi keeps their tanks in the warehouse so the perfidious soviet can't destroy them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I started reading a new book yesterday: "How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II", by Phillips Payson O'Brien "What happened in the great land battles made almost no difference in the air-sea war" I would strongly dispute that in the Pacific. The whole point of taking the various islands was to use them for forward air and naval bases and deny their use of the same to Japan. Most of the island battles wouldn't have had much point otherwise. Anyway whenever I read these "what really won WW2" arguments I almost always agree with them in the sense that it was all of these things and their effects on each other that won the war. The eastern front carrying the biggest load is indisputable but if Russia had been alone in fighting Germany or without lend-lease it probably wouldn't have won and vice versa. At the very least Germany might have still lost but without an unconditional surrender. I think his argument for the importance of the air/sea fight is much more applicable to the Pacific than Europe though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
It’s a very sneaky framing that plays off the idea that land wars should be decided by a single battle like Sedan or something, which is ridiculous. In the air, the Schweinfurt raids were supposed to be that “knockout blow”, and we all know how that went, and the Allies never brought the Kriegsmarine or Regia Marina to decisive battle.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
i mean hell just by looking at non-combat loses you could argue the germans defeated themselves. something like half of all bf-109 non-combat loses were just from landings because the landing gear was was appropriate for a lighter plane and snapped
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:30
|
|
|
That’s a small part of it, the lack of pilot instructors and aviation fuel for training is what caused the accident rate to shoot up, as German trainees got almost no flight time. Additionally, the joint RAF-USAAF campaign to loiter around German airfields with fighter bombers in 1945 caused them to turn off their landing lights and for pilots to rush their approaches. A ridiculous amount of Me-262 losses were on landing, either from Jabos, or fear of Jabos causing pilots to gently caress up their landings in a plane where moving the throttle too rapidly caused the engines to explode.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
Towards the end japanese pilots had like two weeks of training never having shot their weapons or done a carrier landing. Also surprising to find out how many kamikaze pilots were university students who were not at all fanatics, didn't really support the war, and wanted a western style democracy but volunteered anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
Vote Bonzai No Matter Who
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I could just be reading too much into it, but the following passage, to me, belies a deep-seated insecurity about the narrative of World War 2. Inasmuch as the author tries to say that, no, the book is not about minimizing the contributions of the Soviet Union and the fighting on the Eastern Front, they go on at length about how it would be entirely justified in doing so. Indeed, the entire framing of the book is to explore the idea that air and naval campaigns did more to damage Axis warfighting capability than land battles did - that you couldn't say that "80 percent of the “combat” in the European war occurred on the Eastern Front" if you were to recalibrate your perspective to include the strategic bombing campaigns and the Battle of the Atlantic What's his opinion on the Normandy campaign? If he's consistent then he should also dismiss it as a giant waste of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:where moving the throttle too rapidly caused the engines to explode. I learned that from flying the 262 in IL-2
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I started reading a new book yesterday: "How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II", by Phillips Payson O'Brien Oh this totally reads like the guy wants to make the "Well actually the US won the war l" argument but knows that the Lend Lease argument isn't gonna fly, so he chocks it up to strategic bombing
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:"What happened in the great land battles made almost no difference in the air-sea war" The point of how much of war production went to air war maybe makes the other case for the efficacy of strategic bombing. Even if the US/UK strategic bombing campaign wasn't hitting the targets in the way they claimed, that the Germans believed it to be a threat and devoted 50% of their war production to the Air Force means that same production wasn't going to the land war against the USSR. The other larger issue in land war is to take and hold things. Looking at the war from a resource perspective, it was fought by the Axis who had very little oil, against the Allies who had shitloads of it. The Pacific war against the US was precipitated by the US embargoing oil, and the first thing they did after Pearl was make a beeline to the DEI and the oil there. Same deal on the Eastern Front. When the initial drive to Moscow stalled and it looked like the USSR wasn't going to totter and fall apart, the second year goal was Baku and oil. Once Baku was defended, the war was decided.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 05:32
|
|
|
I mean the luftwaffe was a key component of German tactical strategy, so it makes sense to spend lots on it. what would make his argument stronger is if he analyzed the amount of production dedicated to anti-air equipment
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 05:40
|
|
|
BearsBearsBears posted:What's his opinion on the Normandy campaign? If he's consistent then he should also dismiss it as a giant waste of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere. I haven't seen a mention of Overlord yet (I'm only on chapter 1 after the Introduction) but to be fair he does call out the Italian campaign as a giant waste of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 05:45
|
|
|
just sail your battleships to berlin and win the war, bing bong so simple
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 06:26
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The other larger issue in land war is to take and hold things. Looking at the war from a resource perspective, it was fought by the Axis who had very little oil, against the Allies who had shitloads of it. The Pacific war against the US was precipitated by the US embargoing oil, and the first thing they did after Pearl was make a beeline to the DEI and the oil there. In Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze hammers again and again how starved for oil,coal,food and steel Germany was, and how that determined their strategic moves in the war. Saying that land battles were fought over places of no great strategic importance is insane when food rations were getting cut and the whole Werhmacht was infighting over who gets the bigger steel rations.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 06:39
|
|
|
Kinda interesting to see what percentage of annual missile production was spent on Operation Prosperity Guardian, and compare that to the percentage of annual production lost in those big battles in WW2. I wonder what the author thinks of Operation Prosperity Guardian and Yemen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 08:05
|
|
|
Votskomit posted:Kinda interesting to see what percentage of annual missile production was spent on Operation Prosperity Guardian, and compare that to the percentage of annual production lost in those big battles in WW2. completely failing to stop the enemy stated objectives, and unable to outlast them while vastly outspending them at it is actually winning, because
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
look, when you compare the amount of money that the us mic made compared to the money that the yemeni and iranian weapons manufacturers made on prosperity guardian you can clearly see that america's number is far higher
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 08:27
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:this book is also wrong because the basis of material production is manpower and the soviet union is where the nazis went to die. if there are two million more germans in western europe in 1945 there are no landings in italy or france, there is no western war effort at all. The book is right insofar that the effort expended at countering the air campaign, in the form of anti air guns and emplacements, crews, figher bases, fighters, crew, ammunitions and so on was all manpower and productive effort (raw materials, factory capacity, factory manpower) that was allocated away from supporting the front. So even an ineffective strategic air campaign might have induced an outsized response which still made an impact. But then you'd have to quantify exactly how large that impact was, and it'd also help to figure out whether it is this response which rendered the strategic air campaign ineffective (and thus was a necessary cost imposed by said campaign) or if it was an overreaction and thus more a case of getting lucky that the enemy made a mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 10:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The book is right insofar that the effort expended at countering the air campaign, in the form of anti air guns and emplacements, crews, figher bases, fighters, crew, ammunitions and so on was all manpower and productive effort (raw materials, factory capacity, factory manpower) that was allocated away from supporting the front. So even an ineffective strategic air campaign might have induced an outsized response which still made an impact. The question is if you start discounting the situation on the Eastern Front up to mid-1943 because they have to relocate some AD. I really don't think you can. The war was won or lost in the East and everything else including the Pacific theatre was largely a sideshow. The Brits just can't handle it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 11:43
|
|
|
I don't disagree. I'm just outlining the argument someone could make, and would then have to back up with numbers, and would then have to juxtapose to the overall war effort to determine how significant it was. I suspect if you did so you'd still end up proving that the bulk of the effort was in the East, and thus so too was the bulk of the effort in defeating the Nazis. But I don't have those numbers and I'm not going to do all that work. I also wouldn't be surprised if "the big well-known battles" end up representing a surprisingly small part of the overall effort. But then I would expect that the general daily attrition over a front near a thousand miles long and lasting for nearly 4 years is going to end up representing a (surprisingly?) large part of the effort. Orange Devil has issued a correction as of 11:48 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
those brits
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 11:56
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I learned that from flying the 262 in IL-2 1946 was such a good game lmao
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:02
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:those brits It does seem to be a persistent thing in both British and American historiography.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:14
|
|
|
oh yeah we're all complete trash
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I haven't seen a mention of Overlord yet (I'm only on chapter 1 after the Introduction) but to be fair he does call out the Italian campaign as a giant waste of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere That cuts against his own point as the Regia Marina was a far greater threat to the Allies than the Kriegsmarine, and taking it out of the war freed up huge amounts of resources.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:40
|
|