|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Honestly boiling Spam is just as good a preparation method as most others. I mean I personally wouldn't do it but then again I'm not an inmate of a Soviet prison camp.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Looking over the numbers, it's hard to overestimate the effects of lend lease considering the US sent the USSR nearly two thousand locomotives and nearly a half million trucks over the course of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:EDIT: I just realized that the brewpub in my neighborhood in Manchester used to serve gourmet beef stew with honest-to-god fried Spam fritters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:51
|
|
English cuisine
|
Those panels over the windscreen are removable, right? Can't imagine trying to drive the thing through those little slits...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
GMC M12 Queue: PzII Ausf. J, VK 30.01(P)/Typ 100/Leopard, VK 36.01(H), Luchs, Leopard, and other recon tanks, PzIII Ausf. G trials in the USSR, SU-203, 105 mm howitzer M2A1, Mosin, Baranov's pocket mortar, Pz.Sfl.IVc, Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer", Soviet tank winter camo, Semovente L40 da 47/32, Semovente da 75/18, Semovente da 105/25, 7.92 mm wz. 35 anti-tank rifle, 76.2 mm wz. 1902 and 75 mm wz. 1902/26, IM-1 squeezebore cannon, 45 mm M-6 gun, 25-pounder, 25-pounder "Baby", 37 mm Anti-Tank Gun M3, 36 inch Little David mortar, 105 mm howitzer M3, 15 cm sIG 33, 10.5 cm leFH 18, 7.5 cm LG 40, 10.5 cm LG 42, 17 cm K i. Mrs. Laf., 47 mm wz.25 infantry gun, Ferdinand, Tiger (P), Scorpion, SKS, Australian Centurions in Vietnam, PzIII Ausf. E and F, PzIII Ausf. G and H, Trials of the PzIII Ausf. H in the USSR, PzIII Ausf.J-N, Russian Renault, Nashorn/Hornisse, Medium Tank M4A2E8, P.1000 and other work by Grotte, KV-100 and KV-122, Cruiser Tank Mk.I, Cruiser Tank Mk.II, Valentine III and V, Valentine IX, Valentine X and XI, 7TP and Vickers Mk.E trials in the USSR, Modern Polish tank projects, SD-100 (Czech SU-100 clone), TACAM R-2, kpúv vz. 34, kpúv vz. 37, kpúv vz. 38, Available for request:  Schmeisser's work in the USSR Object 237 (IS-1 prototype) SU-85 T-29-5 KV-85 Tank sleds T-80 (the light tank) Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers DS-39 tank machinegun IS-1 (IS-85) IS-2 (object 240) Production of the IS-2 MS-1/T-18 Kalashnikov's debut works SU-152 combat debut MS-1 production Kalashnikov-Petrov self-loading carbine SU-76M (SU-15M) production   Medium Tank M3 use in the USSR GMC M8 HMC T82 57 mm gun M1  Stahlhelm in WWI Stahlhelm in WWII Jagdpanzer IV Panther trials in the USSR Grosstraktor   Hotchkiss H 35 and H 39  FIAT 3000 NEW  Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Those panels over the windscreen are removable, right? Can't imagine trying to drive the thing through those little slits... Yes, they flip up onto the roof while driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Eh? Noteable war fighting tool the tractor or did you mean artillery prime movers? You need trucks for motorised infantry, John Deere's finest not so much. Fun fact: in the USSR the distinction between the two was very much blurred. There were high speed tractors that were designed as artillery prime movers, but in times of war agricultural tractors would also be confiscated for the benefit of the army. Tukhachevskiy even planned to equip them with armour and cannons to have an instant force of 100,000 tanks, but that was obviously never realized. Surprising to no one, this was a terrible idea. The tractors were typically fairly worn and could not tow corps artillery at high speeds even in their prime. As a result, heavy artillery often fell behind and ended up only reaching the front lines when the unit they were supposed to be supporting had already ceased to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
As I recall, the Soviets would ask for something, and it would be procured and shipped over. There were a few cases of "nobody wants these so maybe the Russians will use them", but mostly they got what they wanted, with the exception of six tons of highly enriched uranium, which was turned down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
So, they put trucks on the back burner before they had the opportunity to order anything (except for the tanks they bought from Britain at full price), and just put a high priority on them when they started placing their orders? That makes sense. For as big a deal as Lend Lease was, I've always been surprised at how little information is easily findable about the details.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I didn't know that America still did localized army companies. I thought they all just got mixed up. I don't know what its deal is now, but that battalion was the nucleus of the segregated Japanese American 442d RCT during WWII. It was originally a Guard unit from Hawaii and seems to be based there now as a Reserve unit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:09
|
|
If you look back at old posts of mine ITT you have to keep in mind that the push toward Moscow in 41 more or less demotorised the entire German army, e.g.:quote:In trucks, as already mentioned, this attrition was also a huge problem. There were 600,000 trucks available on June 22 for Barbarossa, largely within the 4 panzer groups. By late September, Panzer Group 2 reported a loss of 30-40% of all its wheeled transport. Exact numbers aren't available for all units, but if you can extrapolate from those losses elsewhere that's a loss of between 180,000 to 240,000 vehicles before Typhoon and the Russian rain and cold had even started. How many did Hitler release to the front when he ordered the release of 300 new tanks? 3,500. Barbarossa had begun a demotorisation of the German army that would only continue in to Typhoon. quote:If the strength of the 12 veteran Panzer divisions Bock had on October 2nd [the 8+4 new ones] is tracked from 22nd of June to 4 October the divisional strength had been reduced by 70%, from 2,476 to 750 tanks. Colonel Walther Charles De Beaulieu, the chief of staff of Panzer Group 4, noted that at the end of September: ‘what one referred to as a “division” was actually only half of a division”. Meanwhile, the shiny new divisions, the 5th and the 2nd, brought 450 tanks each. quote:Tracking The Losses in Barbarossa quote:The Horses did just as poorly: in Hoth’s Panzer Group 3, 1,000 horses died a day. Weisenberger, in Guderian’s Panzer Army’s LIII’s corps, left half of his horses behind when he advanced away from Briansk towards Tula in mid October; the panje horses they stole to replace these losses could not pull a 105 or 150mm gun, which took 6 and 8 large and healthy German draft horses respectively in good weather. Many of the horses weren’t shod for winter. Bock later reports seeing a single gun being pulled by 24 horses. They ate, for lack of fodder, straw roofs, birch twigs and tree bark. Almost all of these losses were from conditions, particularly mud: of 1,000 horses treated by one veterenary company, only 10% were from enemy fire. In total, even after reinforcements, the entire eastern front’s supply of horses was already at 65% strength by November. It's also not much talked about that not having to produce naval vessels was an enormous boon to Soviet production, when you consider how much of a share of production naval vessels were for all of the other belligerents. Every resource could be driven in to production of land vehicles and aircraft. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
I've repeatedly heard stories that a lot of the lend-lease trucks sent to the Soviet Union still had USA painted on the sides, which most Russians who saw them thought was an acronym to the effect of (I don't remember the exact Russian words) "Kill that loving Adolf."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Available for request: Renault, Nashorn, M2A4E8, P1000, KV-100/122, and all , , and please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Germany was also going through a massive oil shortage. Even with heavy rationalizing of oil with regards to the civilian sector they had to go through heavy demobilization before Operation Barborasa. Despite images and pop culture imaging the Germans as all motorized and mechanized divisions with massive tank numbers it very much wasn't the case
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:If you look back at old posts of mine ITT you have to keep in mind that the push toward Moscow in 41 more or less demotorised the entire German army, e.g.: That's not quite true though? Like, they weren't building carriers or battleships, but they did build a decent number of subs and destroyers for the fighting on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
kraken! posted:Does anyone have reading recommendations about the espionage in the cold war, especially in Berlin? https://www.amazon.com/Man-Without-Face-Markus-Wolf/dp/1891620126
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:57
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:That's not quite true though? Like, they weren't building carriers or battleships, but they did build a decent number of subs and destroyers for the fighting on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea. Between 1941 and 1945 the USSR built 2 cruisers, 25 destroyers, and 52 submarines. Japan between 42 and 45 built 13 aircraft carriers, a battleship, 5 cruisers, 55 destroyers, and 99 submarines. The UK built 2 battleships, 6 carriers, 15 cruisers, 141 destroyers and 111 submarines in the same timespan. The USSR also built virtually no merchant shipping and Japan alone built 3,3 million tons of it; the UK almost 4 million tons. For reference that took up 50% of all of Japan's steel production and Japan and the USSR produced the same amount of steel in 1942 and 1943. It's a massive difference.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Japan between 42 and 45 built 13 aircraft carriers, a battleship, 5 cruisers, 55 destroyers, and 99 submarines. ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Given what an overwhelmingly low priority the land war was in production terms, it's an interesting question.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Given what an overwhelmingly low priority the land war was in production terms, it's an interesting question. it's probably because this is the ww2 founding myth of america. i don't mean by that phrasing that it's wrong that we focus on this, ofc. all cultures have poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've repeatedly heard stories that a lot of the lend-lease trucks sent to the Soviet Union still had USA painted on the sides, which most Russians who saw them thought was an acronym to the effect of (I don't remember the exact Russian words) "Kill that loving Adolf." It's quite possible. As the name kinda implies, all the items shipped under Lend-Lease were American military property that was (on paper) in US service. Every vehicle, from a Jeep to a B-25, had its own US model designation and US military serial number, technically waiting for the day it would be returned after the war. This even applied to machinery that the US itself never operated - various types of aircraft, for instance, existed on the USAAF or USN's book only on paper because they were variants that had actually been created for Lend-Lease. Mass-produced, single-spec stuff like trucks that were also widely and actually used by the US would quite likely be produced 'on stream' and batches would be picked out by the purchasing commissions, so all the trucks would be out-shopped in US-spec Olive Drab with white stars on the doors even if they were going straight onto the boat for shipment to the USSR. More specialised stuff like aircraft would often be produced in 'part-complete' condition with some specific parts fitted by the end-user. For instance the Lockheed Hudsons 'lent' to the RAF were shipped minus their guns, rear turrets, radios, tyres and much of their navigation and electrical system because these were British-built to RAF specs. Sometimes this went a bit wrong. You get a good insight into how Lend-Lease worked looking at how Claire Chennault and T.V.Soong went shopping for fighters for the American Volunteer Group. Although very much not Chennault's preferred type, only the P-40B was available in sufficient quantity, sufficiently quickly and at a low enough price. Soong, who was buying the aircraft, had to negotiate hard with the British purchasing commission who were keeping Curtiss' production lines full with Tomahawk orders for the RAF and they didn't want to lose 100 badly-needed aircraft. In the end it was mutually agreed that the British would lose 50 aircraft from two pre-ordered batches but get 100 'free' P-40Cs, which were just about to enter production, and Curtiss would open a third production line so the RAF would get higher-spec aircraft more quickly than promised. So the AVG received 100 (actually 99 because one was dropped in Rangoon harbour while being unloaded) RAF-spec Tomahawk IIBs in RAF 'sand-and-spinach' Home Service camoflague colours designed for the south of England rather than eastern China, because Curtiss pre-painted the aircraft in the factory. Look at the pictures of the AVG aircraft and you can see 'blank' circle shapes in the paint where the RAF roundels were supposed to go (and would have been applied in the UK). Rather more importantly, the AVG aircraft arrived in Asia minus their radios, gunsights and wing guns because these were British-fitted items and no one had realised that since the aircraft weren't going to the UK they would never get them. So the fitters in Burma had to scare up a motley mix of three different types of .30-cal machine gun, each taking a slightly different form of ammunition, while for most of the AVG's time defending Burma the pilots were aiming through WW1-style 'iron sights' (which were factory-fit) and with no radios. The Chinese were able to buy a batch of semi-portable civilian radios which were given to flight and squadron leaders but until well into 1942 there were real difficulties with communication between pilots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
The Japanese estimated their oil reserves would last for 1-2 years after the US embargo, so without seizing British and Dutch reserves in SE Asia the Chinese war would probably have fizzled out? I doubt they could accomplish much more than they did irl.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I think the core issue is that SEAL Team 6 really was a SF ninja outfit, which makes everyone assume the other SEAL Teams are too, when they really aren't. Plus the media and pop culture still haven't really caught up to the fact that they split off and became DEVGRU, and keep calling them "SEAL Team 6." My favorite thing about this is sending 60 SEALs to secure and hold an airfield in Panama, which is like a core function of the Rangers. My second favorite thing about this is the ultimate objective was to prevent Noreiaga from leaving by disabling his plane. If you insist on using the SEALs the proper way to do it would have been to infiltrate a small team and put some holes into it with a .50cal
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Japanese estimated their oil reserves would last for 1-2 years after the US embargo, so without seizing British and Dutch reserves in SE Asia the Chinese war would probably have fizzled out? I doubt they could accomplish much more than they did irl. Also beyond seizing resources for themselves, invading Southeast Asia more or less cut off access to foreign trade for China. It was the only option, other than, you know, peace. As far as the GBH question goes, they were never gonna beat the US in an all out war. No war in China might have freed up bodies but not enough production to make a difference. Could they have won in China? In a scenario where the US decides to happily sell Japan steel and oil forever they could have eventually ground down organized KMT resistance and declared victory. Still probably have an endless guerilla war in the frontiers and an iron fisted occupation. China is way too big to administer so it would have been an endless mess working with a collaborationist government that they don't entrust with enough power or legitimacy to actually maintain order. Then the finale in this scenario is probably still the Soviets kicking their poo poo in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Then the finale in this scenario is probably still the Soviets kicking their poo poo in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:here's a gay black hitler for everyone: if EITHER the war against us OR the war on the continent existed for Japan, but not both, could they have won either of them I don't see how they could possibly win against the US even if they weren't fighting on the continent. The economic disparity was just too huge. Somebody had a link earlier that pointed out there was one 6 month period where the US built more tons of shipping than Japan did during the entire war. I don't even know what victory would look like for them. Invading the continental US was obviously impossible. I guess they could have tried to take Hawaii (in gay black Tojo world where they won at Midway) but even if they somehow achieved air and naval superiority they would have to assault these heavily garrisoned and fortified islands that were much closer to the US mainland than Japan. On the other hand I don't see why they couldn't have won in China if that was all they had to focus on. The Ichigo offensive in 1944 cut China in two and Japanese losses were moderate. They weren't being bled white like the Germans in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:here's a gay black hitler for everyone: if EITHER the war against us OR the war on the continent existed for Japan, but not both, could they have won either of them No.  no, even.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Then the finale in this scenario is probably still the Soviets kicking their poo poo in. Would it? From a Soviet perspective, China being a big mess would be preferable to China being a stable power that's still unhappy about the loss of the north side of the Amur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
 Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Should've put a window there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
If anyone needs a guide to matchlock and halberd drill, I snagged this at a book sale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:28
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:The reason it occured to me was that we talk so often about how overstretched they were but not very many people in that conversation (who are all british or american) stop to think that they're a tiny country trying to fight a two front war The interesting thing, though, is that Japan was putting out comparable production to the USSR until part way through 44 when it could no longer feed its industry with exogenous resources, it just had wildly different production objectives. Japan essentially stopped supplying the army in China at all and forced it to source its supply and equipment locally, and produced virtually no AFV's (it manufactured 401 in 1944 compared to 28,963 in the USSR). It produced a poo poo ton of shipping and in 1944 it produced 28,180 aircraft to the USSR's 40,246, and pretty good planes, too. People really lowball what Japan was capable of doing industrially, mostly because they don't realise that making ships and planes is many times more industrially intensive than making equipment for the land war, which is what people are fixated on. I suppose what I also mean to say is I think Japan really did try to fight just one of its two wars. The counterfactual problem is that without the US trading with it, it never could have sustained production at levels competitive with the other powers.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
Japan didn't have the manpower or the supply/logistics to win in China. If you look at the map of the land they took, its never all that far from the coast, except for a little bit near the puppet state in Inner Mongolia, because so many of their supplies were being shipped by sea. The further away from the coast they got, the more strained their supply lines got. Meanwhile, behind the lines, the combination of the Communist "base areas" and the non-Communist resistance meant that Japan couldn't even secure the countryside in the area they controlled. There was an active resistance movement in Manchuria that the Japanese actively tried to put down for ten years, finally succeeding in 1942. Meanwhile, the whole "burn to ash/three alls" campaign by the Japanese was a symptom of their inability to do anything against unrest, or to get any benefit out of the territory they controlled. When you resort to large scale civilian massacres and scorched earth combat fighting guerrillas, it's a sign that your conquest attempt has gone pretty seriously wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:that war would have had so much loving cav in it a kursk in every sector
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
To give an overall impression* of Japanese production priorities, in 1944 Japan spent this many millions of yen in each of these sectors, as well as a rough percentage of industrial effort: Merchant Shipping: 1,665 (10% of production effort) Navy Shipbuilding: 2,099 (13% PE) Navy Ordinance: 4,638 (30% PE) Army Ordinance: 2,107 (13%) Motor Vehicles: 270 (2%) Aircraft: 5,024 (32%) Army production was such a nonfactor that the Kwantung army just set up its own factories and only got things like aircraft from the mainland. The armies in China bartered with each other for what they needed. *According to the strategic bombing survey Disinterested fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The armies in China bartered with each other for what they needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:To give an overall impression* of Japanese production priorities, in 1944 Japan spent this many millions of yen in each of these sectors, as well as a rough percentage of industrial effort: Seems like the IJN won the interservice fight pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
I can imagine the war in China being doable if they decided to take just like a big slice of China and not the whole thing all at once, but I'm not sure if that would've been tolerable to the Japanese high command. Kinda like all those Nazi Germany hypotheticals where maybe they could've won if they didn't try to take everything all at once, but then Hitler wouldn't be Hitler, would he.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
I don't think it could have won the fight any harder unless the IJN decided to blockade China.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:The reason it occured to me was that we talk so often about how overstretched they were but not very many people in that conversation (who are all british or american) stop to think that they're a tiny country trying to fight a two front war Japan is about 50% bigger by land area and has twice the population of the UK, you know...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:41
|
|
