|
V. Illych L. posted:no it wouldn't I've read some stuff that suggested that the Soviet industrialization actually arguably prevented the FSU from only ever attaining a "Philipines" level of economic development because their geographical positioning and resource extraction based economy would've prevented Russia from developing a truly developed industrial economy; and only by "over" industrializing did they prevent this (by accident). I'm partial to this theory because Russia today seems to be deindustrializing. quote:He was wondering just what would have been the outcome of Germany successfully encouraging Japan to commit to attacking the Soviet Union at the same time as Barbarossa, thus before the United States had entered the war. We're unsure exactly how much the Japanese could dedicate in June of 1941 or slightly before when they're already dealing with China and the American embargoes, as well as how well the Soviets could have fought off the attack. Personally I don't think they could have dedicated enough resources to hamper the Soviets to the point where Germany could have potentially defeated them. Strangely I feel Harry Turtledove outlined probably exactly what would have happened. The Soviets would've been too busy in the West to send reinforcements, but at the same time they would be able to tenaciously defend the approach to Vladivostok and slow the Japanese advance to a crawl. The IJA would have probably been able to eventually siege and take Vladivostok but the cost would be high, the outcome slow, and eventually would need to call it off with minor gains from Stalin and absolutely curbstomped 45-46. It's unclear what would happen in the West but the fresh troops from the East, while critical probably to drive the Germans back in the winter and nearly collapse the front, but at the same time Typhoon had already failed by this time, and the Soviets were getting into gear in replacing their manpower and material loses. I think the Soviets would've eventually pushed the Germans back but those troops weren't needed to continue holding the front line at that position; so it just would've taken longer. The Soviets also lost a chunk of troops in that winter offensive as well, I think this is where Vlasov got encircled and captured. So without that winter offencive the Soviets probably retain a large number of troops they would've lost otherwise so it might even out at the cost of not reclaiming some ground for another six months.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Superior manufacturing tolerances. Also you can and should have fin stabilized HEAT, having it spin reduces effectiveness. Including the fact that unlike with earlier guns, there's a very good match of projectile diameter with the bore of the gun. Rifling actually has a detrimental effect upon the final velocity of the shell and if you need the most oomph that you can get then you want to get rid of anything that slows the shell down too much. I'm not entirely positive, but I believe that detrimental effect is mostly due to some of the forward momentum being turned into rotational momentum than friction with the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I've read some stuff that suggested that the Soviet industrialization actually arguably prevented the FSU from only ever attaining a "Philipines" level of economic development because their geographical positioning and resource extraction based economy would've prevented Russia from developing a truly developed industrial economy; and only by "over" industrializing did they prevent this (by accident). The Soviet economy worked for values of "worked" equal to "prevent destruction by the Nazis." That's a pretty significant thing, but their economy was pretty lovely for the decades before they threw in the towel. The military budget was an enormous drain, consumer luxury goods were basically nonexistent, agriculture was horribly inefficient (outputs per farmer were about 25% those of the US, food shortages were a permanent fact of life), etc. Taerkar posted:Including the fact that unlike with earlier guns, there's a very good match of projectile diameter with the bore of the gun. Rifling actually has a detrimental effect upon the final velocity of the shell and if you need the most oomph that you can get then you want to get rid of anything that slows the shell down too much. The big issue is that there's always *some* degree of precession and nutation of a spinning projectile, and that becomes more significant as the length:diameter ratio increases. As the projectile gets longer, the spin rate needed to keep it stable increases, and past a certain point you'd need to spin the projectile too fast for it to remain in one piece. Kinetic penetrators want to maximize length:diameter, and precession is going to really reduce their penetration, so once you reach a certain point you need to fin-stabilize it. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
The Russian economy is still lovely today, so personally I am apt to blame something like technological and economic isolation, large geographic distances, bad climactic/geographic conditions etc etc than anything directly about communism or authoritarian governments. But this is becoming a derail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The Russian economy is still lovely today, so personally I am apt to blame something like technological and economic isolation, large geographic distances, bad climactic/geographic conditions etc etc than anything directly about communism or authoritarian governments. But this is becoming a derail. Not really. Economic factors are arguably more important to military history than even competent field leadership. Phanatic posted:The Soviet economy worked for values of "worked" equal to "prevent destruction by the Nazis." That's a pretty significant thing, but their economy was pretty lovely for the decades before they threw in the towel. The military budget was an enormous drain, consumer luxury goods were basically nonexistent, agriculture was horribly inefficient (outputs per farmer were about 25% those of the US, food shortages were a permanent fact of life), etc. The Soviet economy was hosed long before that. The thing that kept it afloat during the "golden days" of the Brezhnev years was OPEC throwing a fit in the 70s and the resulting oil crisis. Their industrial base started eroding badly at the same time, but the oil revenues acted as a counter to that and kept them afloat through most of the 70s and 80s. A large part of why Gorbechev tried to reform the Soviet system as much as he did was because of the recognition of just how oil dependent they had become and what was going to happen when it suffered some kind of downturn. If Brezhnev had used that decade of oil induced prosperity to reform the underlying economy rather than just patch over the old Stalinist industrial base Russia might have been in a very different place than it was in the early 90s. In a lot of ways there are some significant parallels there to what Putin is having to deal with today. Russia was able to ride pretty high during the peak years of high oil prices, but poo poo's looking more dire by the day the longer our current downturn lasts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. Come to that, probably the more important question there is whether fascism actually means anything coherent and whether Italy, Germany, and Japan in WW2 are similar enough in shape to be grouped together under that definition in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no it wouldn't What won the Russians the war was not steel or coal production, because Germany outproduced the Soviets 4:1. What won them the war was ruthless efficiency and pragmatism in their production and loads of lend-lease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&t=1842s
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. Being on the winning side ended up being merely a formality for the Japanese and Italians. Both had been promised by the British and French concessions. For Italy annexing parts of the Southeast Alps and Adriatic coastline from Austria-Hungary and while they got some of what they wanted, Japan had been offered all of Germany's holdings in Asia with the little caveat that millions of Chinese people were living there and had wanted no part of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Exactly. Hitler was just making up for slack demand in the already massive German industrial economy by printing money and borrowing to spend recklessly on things like armaments (though also infrastructure). Stalin created an industrial base where there basically wasn't one before, an enormous sea-change. Stalin didn't create Soviet Union's industrial base, it was already in place. He expanded it rapidly by dropping real-wages and putting most of the economic output in to increasing production. The growth rates were bigger than in eg. Germany's or Japan's industrialization. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Friend shared this, and I laughed. I'm going to hell, aren't I?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Tias posted:Friend shared this, and I laughed. I'm going to hell, aren't I? Yeah, but more for finding such a low-effort dumb joke funny, not so much for laughing at the darker side of history. edit: this is how you do inappropriate WW2 /  humor:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLqz1udhtY
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
So I've been playing Napoleon Total War recently, and a question came to mind. Did different calibres of field guns serve different purposes in the field in that period? As in, in the game, you have 6 iber, 8 iber and 12 iber guns, but the former are little more than an option for "until you get to the good stuff". Were smaller cannons fielded for any particular reason, or more or less with the same principle in mind as lovely tanks are nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, but more for finding such a low-effort dumb joke funny, not so much for laughing at the darker side of history. Actually, it's somewhat appropriate today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Hitler is a lot doper on the mic than I recall 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Tias posted:Hitler is a lot doper on the mic than I recall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurBHWxYaR0
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:So I've been playing Napoleon Total War recently, and a question came to mind. Did different calibres of field guns serve different purposes in the field in that period? As in, in the game, you have 6 iber, 8 iber and 12 iber guns, but the former are little more than an option for "until you get to the good stuff". Were smaller cannons fielded for any particular reason, or more or less with the same principle in mind as lovely tanks are nowadays? Lighter = more mobile and easier to sustain. A bigger boom is always nice but when it requires twice as much lift (in the form of horses) to move the gun, ammo, and powder it is sometimes better to go lighter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Although that would change over time. I believe Napoleon preferred relatively fast maneuvers with his medium and light artillery (4, 6, and 8 pounders). But gunners in the American Civil War considered anything smaller than the 12-pounder Napoleon to be obsolete. Note, the 12-pounder Napoleon was named for Napoleon III.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. Italy joined the war being promised pretty much the entire Adriatic coast from the mouth of the Isonzo to Vlore in Albania, under a banner of insane irredentist nationalism. It then took them three years, hideous casualties, and the complete collapse of their opponents, for General Cadorna to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Trieste; and then they got completely stitched up by the peace settlement. Enter Mussolini, who the war had transformed from a revolutionary socialist into a raving nationalist, to harness the widespread anger; then Giolotti hosed up in exactly the same way that Franz von Papen did in thinking he could use Hitler for his own ends, with the same end result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Tomn posted:In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1 Italy lost a ton of people in WW1 and got basically poo poo for it at Versailles. 'Winning' WW1 was kind of relative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Italy's biggest contribution ironically enough was galvanising the Austro-Hungarian war effort. Nobody cared for the war until the traitors stabbed us in the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
The big advance for light artillery during the ACW was rifling. The 3 inch rifle was quite a bit lighter than the 12 lber, fired a smaller shot with less powder, but could outrange it and was much more accurate at range. Smoothbores had a bigger boom, bounced better on the ground, and could grapeshot. In practice this often meant that the rifles were used for counterfire, the smoothbores against infantry. The irony was that the rifles were much easier to move, but they tended to remain stationary while the smoothbores were rolled all about along with infantry formations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Riso posted:Italy's biggest contribution ironically enough was galvanising the Austro-Hungarian war effort. Nobody cared for the war until the traitors stabbed us in the back. lol you seem personally hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Stalin didn't create Soviet Union's industrial base, it was already in place. He expanded it rapidly by dropping real-wages and putting most of the economic output in to increasing production. The growth rates were bigger than in eg. Germany's or Japan's industrialization. Your point is kind of semantic. Obviously there was an industrial base of some kind, but in proportion to its size and relative to other countries it was very small.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Baracula posted:lol you seem personally hurt. If you say so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:16
|
|
Riso posted:Italy's biggest contribution ironically enough was galvanising the Austro-Hungarian war effort. Nobody cared for the war until the traitors stabbed us in the back. I think this is a great example of flogging a dead horse on so many levels.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Riso posted:If you say so. I do
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:What won the Russians the war was not steel or coal production, because Germany outproduced the Soviets 4:1. What won them the war was ruthless efficiency and pragmatism in their production and loads of lend-lease. How did lend-lease work with Russia anyways? You can't go through Europe because of Germany and Finland, and the Italian navy was in the Med. until, what, 1943? And Japan held onto the Pacific routes. Did the US shop through the Caucuses mountains via Indian ports or go through Kamchatka?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Italy joined the war being promised pretty much the entire Adriatic coast from the mouth of the Isonzo to Vlore in Albania, under a banner of insane irredentist nationalism. It then took them three years, hideous casualties, and the complete collapse of their opponents, for General Cadorna to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Trieste; and then they got completely stitched up by the peace settlement. Enter Mussolini, who the war had transformed from a revolutionary socialist into a raving nationalist, to harness the widespread anger; then Giolotti hosed up in exactly the same way that Franz von Papen did in thinking he could use Hitler for his own ends, with the same end result. To swallow the bitter pill at Versailles, the Italians were promised prime chunks of former Ottoman real estate. Only problem... Those pieces were also promised to the Greeks and the French. When the Italians found out, they pulled out of the joint effort against a nascent Turkey. They learned too late that perfidiou Albion isn't just a nickname; it's a way of life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:21
|
|
Slaan posted:How did lend-lease work with Russia anyways? You can't go through Europe because of Germany and Finland, and the Italian navy was in the Med. until, what, 1943? And Japan held onto the Pacific routes. Did the US shop through the Caucuses mountains via Indian ports or go through Kamchatka? Britain shipped it over the hump of Norway at the peril of bombers at great risk. It was some of the most unpleasant service of the war.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:So I've been playing Napoleon Total War recently, and a question came to mind. Did different calibres of field guns serve different purposes in the field in that period? As in, in the game, you have 6 iber, 8 iber and 12 iber guns, but the former are little more than an option for "until you get to the good stuff". Were smaller cannons fielded for any particular reason, or more or less with the same principle in mind as lovely tanks are nowadays? Lb's, not ib's. Iber guns were only used in the Peninsular war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Slaan posted:How did lend-lease work with Russia anyways? You can't go through Europe because of Germany and Finland, and the Italian navy was in the Med. until, what, 1943? And Japan held onto the Pacific routes. Did the US shop through the Caucuses mountains via Indian ports or go through Kamchatka? There were three major routes: Persia (Persian Gulf -> Tehran -> Baku/Ashgabat), Pacific/Far East (US west coast ports -> Vladivostok), and the Arctic (US/UK -> Murmansk/Arkhangelsk). The Pacific was the largest by a fair margin and consumed a huge portion of Soviet merchant shipping capacity throughout the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Slaan posted:How did lend-lease work with Russia anyways? You can't go through Europe because of Germany and Finland, and the Italian navy was in the Med. until, what, 1943? And Japan held onto the Pacific routes. Did the US shop through the Caucuses mountains via Indian ports or go through Kamchatka? Via Murmansk ( ice permitting) or Vladivostok ( in Soviet flagged ships).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:There were three major routes: Persia (Persian Gulf -> Tehran -> Baku/Ashgabat), Pacific/Far East (US west coast ports -> Vladivostok), and the Arctic (US/UK -> Murmansk/Arkhangelsk). The Pacific was the largest by a fair margin and consumed a huge portion of Soviet merchant shipping capacity throughout the war. The Persian route was important enough that the Brits and Russians felt compelled to coup the shah when he threatened it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Iber guns were only used in the Peninsular war. goddamn man
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. If anybody could succinctly answer these questions, I would buy their book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:47
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. Good starting point: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html I will effortpost a little about this tomorrow from work.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, what exactly led to the development of fascism in Italy and Germany? In Germany it's often said that the experience of defeat in WW1 combined with punishing peace terms was what led to the revanchism that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but Italy and Japan were both on the winning sides of WW1, so that hardly seems to be the same trigger. Italian fascism was a pretty mature political philosophy, thanks to the work of Giovanni Gentile, at the time sometimes hailed as the greatest neo-Hegelian thinker of his generation. It also developed an ideological framework for political action, in the form of corporativism, and had a strong cultural backing. Nazism is really boring in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Can any of you fine milhis goons share some info about airborne operations during WWII, specifically those the 82nd airborne was involved in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Good starting point: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html I don't care for Eco's approach at all. Not that this necessarially makes it objectively wrong, but I find that it's way too all-encompasing and allows things to be defined as fascist that really don't fit at all. It's a messy concept to begin with, but that doesn't obscure the fact that it's a specific political movement that emerged from a specific context in early 20th century europe. I vastly prefer Payne's approach and, to a lesser extent, Nolte's. The key thing that links all historical examples of fascist movements, at least in my opinion, is the idea of the 'fascist negations' with the other contributing factors being contingent on the specific political and historical context that it's emerging from (e.g. Italian Fascism vs. German Nazism vs. the Hungarian Arrow Cross movement). Personally, to answer an earlier question, I don't really think that Imperial Japan fits into the mold of fascism all that well and that it got shoe-horned in there mostly due to post-war politics. It was militarist in the extreme, but that's not enough to render it fascist (well, unless you're Eco, which is a big part of why I disagree with him). edit: for anyone wanting to dig deep into the various attempts of people to define fascism and categorize the different historical examples - the wikipedia article on "definitions of fascism" is actually pretty decent as a tl;dr of the issue. Chase down some of the specific works mentioned in there by the various historians and thinkers if you want more in-depth explorations of it. A lot of the way people understand the concept of 'fascism' is contingent on their understanding of how history works in general, so make sure you check the background of the various historians involved in those debates. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:42 |
|
golden bubble posted:Note, the 12-pounder Napoleon was named for Napoleon III. This has always amused me for some reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:34
|
|
