|
Pornographic Memory posted:Shermans are all well and good, but how many tank destroyers would it take to take down an M1? It will need a lucky shot, but I reckon one IS-152 can possibly do it.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:You see, the big ship is the same ship as the little one, but its going through a time portal. It's pulling the Picard maneuver.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I actually just finished writing a paper on the Sherman for a history class I'm taking, but of course every time it comes up it's when I haven't checked the thread for three days. I swear I've seen mechwarrior heavy mechs with that loadout.... I should do some kind of effort post on the T34 at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
It always seemed to me that recent advances in navy technology seem to be focused on defending from missile attack, and comparatively little work has been done on stopping a submarine from unloading, say, a bunch of Shvals into your carrier battlegroup, and then slinking away in the chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
I think war weariness was less of an issue than occupation weariness. After WWII and Japanese occupation, no one in Asia was exactly keen on being under foreign control....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The really funny part was when tank warfare became the new godsend cavalry substitute and the british were all like "nope gonna do this like ships but on land" and rejected all the hard-won doctrine refined post-WW1. Um, no. In the earlier parts of WWII, the British made a deliberate decision to divide their tank force into Cruiser tanks (mobile exploitation), and Infantry tanks (slow, heavily armoured infantry support), as can be seen in the Crusader vs Matilda series. The Germans in fact ended up doing something similar - the Tiger was basically the German infantry tank. Ships but on land was a WWI thing. Blitzkrieg-type warfare was basically irrelevant to the British and French experience at the start of WWII, because such warfare was a strategy of *attack*. And the British and French were unwilling to attack. By the time the British had their turn to attack in France 1944-45, the Eastern front had taught the germans and russians the ways blitzkrieg might be defeated. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:I suppose Tiger could be used for infantry support, but didn't its design (a high-velocity gun and heavy armor) and its tactical employment lean more towards an anti-armor role? I associate StuGs more with the infantry-support role. Well, slow, with heavy all-round armour tends to be more of an infantry tank thing. The gun was good, but the large calibre made it suitable for firing HE - the smaller calibre guns you see in the Panthers are better for anti-tank roles. I guess I was a bit overambitious in drawing the parallel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The distinction between Cavalry and Infantry tanks gets lost after like 1941, when everybody realized that you want at least passable performance fighting both tanks and infantry. Explain. As far as I know British tanks were plenty effective in the later period. The main issue was advancements in German armour outpacing British gunnery, but that was something separate. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/mikhail-kalashnikov-dead-at-94-ak47-inventor-had-been-in-hospital-for-a-month-9022861.htmlquote:Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the world's most popular rifle, has died. He was 94. EDIT: ^^^ gah
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Good lord, I just caught myself trying to trace the lines of enfilading fire from the sides of a Christmas star I was looking at. I need to get out of this building and walk around in the fresh air and sunlight. A Christmas star will never be effective given that Santa and his reindeer corps enjoy air superiority, and have unparalleled bombardment and paratroop airdrop capabilities. The nation's defences have fallen woefully behind the times. Merry Christmas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Who would win, Santa or an army of Napoleonic Mongols, led by Gay Black Hitler, with a company of Tank Destroyers in support?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Italy also sent an expedition (later 8th Army) to fight in the Russian front, and a torpedo boat detachment to Lake Ladoga. Neither of them did too well. The MAS boats were transferred to Finland after the season of 1942. That's one way of putting it. Otroschenkov Sergei Andreyevich posted:When we got repaired we caught up with our troops. We arrived in the area; I will never forget the Cossack hamlet Khlebny. 3 km from there was another hamlet named Petrovsky. It was also occupied by Soviet tanks, but not those of our brigade. Between those two hamlets, which lay on hills, there was lowland. Early in the morning the 8th Italian army was passing along that lowland in an enormous thick crowd saving itself from the encirclement. When the Italian vanguard units aligned with us we heard the command being distributed along our columns: “Go forward! Crush them!" Then we tore into them from both flanks! I have never seen a mess as that one. We literally ground the Italian army into the soil. You should have looked into our eyes to see how much anger and hatred we had then! So we were squashing those Italians like bugs. It was winter; our tanks were painted in white color. When we disengaged from the battle the tanks below the turrets were red as if had floated in blood. I looked at the tracks: hands and fragments of skulls were stuck here and there. The spectacle was appalling. We captured crowds of POWs that day. After that elimination the 8th Italian army literally ceased to exist. At least, I never saw a single Italian at the front after that. Probably in bad taste for me to post my woodcraft T34-85...  EDIT: VVV I believe those hatches are supposed to be the roof ventilators. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I wouldn't call it extreme but you're probably thinking of Blood Red Roses, the excavations from the battle of Towton. Where and how their muscle attachments developed was particularly striking. On archers the bones were also different from modern men because of how they were trained from youth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Counterinsurgency is an important aspect for colonialists if the native population fights back with guerilla tactics, but it's not colonialism itself. Consider the case of America for example, where the particular insurgency was that of the colonialists *themselves*. Similar is the case of the Boer war, where the British fought Boer settlers, with the support of native Africans. You also have cases like Cuba where the US actively funded and encouraged insurgency operations with the aim of creating a Cuba closer to its own orbit. Terming the Cuban governments' efforts against them 'colonialism' would be ludicrous.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On a related note, when can iraq/afghanistan officially be classified as 'history'? We can (theoretically) do an unbiased and politically neutral analysis of 'nam today because basically everyone who was politically involved is no longer on the scene or relevant anymore, and because cold-war geopolitical/intelligence concerns are now irrelevant. How long does that normally take to happen, so that people can start rationally deconstructing the middle eastern adventures without causing political uproar or inciting flag-waving nonsense? I find it humorous that you think such a thing as political neutral history exists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
I suspect that the thing we all gently caress up will be the human factor. Recall this Charlie Stross post: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/08/snowden-leaks-the-real-take-ho.html Modern military systems are the same. They assume an absolute loyalty that is going to get weaker and weaker as people get more and more into social networks and all those sorts of communication that serve to erase national lines. In turn, infrastructure has not been developed to isolate individual traitors from damaging the wider system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Would the Germans have been more effective if they adopted the naval mine methodology the US deployed against the Japanese?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
They are going lower, but lower at night. I don't see any strong reasons why duplicated 88's would be more effective than any other AAA capability. Any improvement they might have over existing Japanese AAA would be a longer range. German flak certainly did not stop allied bombers from laying waste to Dresden etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You don't really need 'long range' if you're trying to mine the Channel from bases in France. It's like two miles across. Well, escorting bombers over the channel would have been easier/more fair than escorting them over the UK mainland, at least. I suppose the timeframe I have in mind for this would be approximately during the Battle of Britain. Not sure how effective minesweeping operations would have been in contested airspace.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What was the best way for a pre-industrial army to defeat a modern fortress with its glacis, bastions, casemates etc. if starving it out was not an option. Something more subtle than burying it in bodies? Mining operations? Sustained artillery fire? Was there a general framework to which commanders adhered, or did they come up with ad hoc solutions based on each individual layout? Turn someone on the inside, and have him set fire to/blow up the ammo reserves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
If we're talking a pre-industrial army fighting a modern one, the walls would be the least of their problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So, what was the purpose of basically razing a city to the ground? Like, what would their mentality have been? It seems like an unsustainable lifestyle, to me it would make more sense to keep raiding so you never run out of food/riches/whatever instead of utterly destroying the source of your livelihood. If you don't crush them utterly, eventually your victims are going to recover from whatever weakness they currently have. Meanwhile you'll get fat and decadent and weak off your spoils. One day, they'll build an army big enough, and kick your arse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
quote:The general view appears to be that a modern war becomes static only when the opposing sides lack either resources or the will to act rapidly. A properly equipped and motivated force would act with such speed and decisiveness that it could not be pinned down long enough for what we now call trench warfare to develop. The Russians are criticised for their passivity and lack of offensive spirit, the rigidity in their thinking and the lack of initiative at all levels of command. Well, if the Schlieffen plan had worked (could it have worked?) we'd probably be looking at things differently. Trench warfare didn't happen on the Eastern front, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Speaking of Russian war art, I was made aware of this: http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim.html 12th century doodles of soldiers by a small boy 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:It's unsettling to get this slow creep of horror as you realize these are pictures of war brutality as experienced by a young kid. And not the semi-sanitized experience of a young kid hiding in subways as London gets the hell pounded out of it. People getting hacked up with swords, run through by cavalry, chased down and slaughtered. All the while this kid is dutifully drawing pictures, seemingly oblivious to the human toll of the world being ripped apart around him. Maybe he actually was a complete blubbering mess, maybe he was a total Er. It's not like he's being a war journalist. I imagine he just grew up on stories of awesome warrior dudes beating up bad guys, so that's what he drew. From what we know of this area in this period, things were fairly prosperous - indeed the literacy level was very high, extending to both women and children, and being used for various trivial purposes. He wrote his name next to the dude on the horse. quote:Also, Fangz, the drawings are 13th century, not 12th. The archaeological excavations put it at 1224-1238. Whoops.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 16:14
|
|
and wanted to make sure he drew accurate accounts of wanton destruction.
|
Personally, I think that ultimately the Cold War happened because both sides benefited politically from it. Stalin certainly needed external enemies to secure his hold on power and stop people from asking unfortunate questions. Churchill was fighting strong socialist opposition (which ultimately defeated him.) Truman was always close to the anti-Soviets (remember his opinion on Barbarossa was that the US should let the two fight it out and try to prolong the conflict so that both would be destroyed). The existence of the Iron Curtain gave the US justification to strive to maintain super-powerhood, and raised the image of America, solidifying the World Police viewpoint (which was fairly weak before Roosevelt). I think blaming any one side is insufficient. Nations want to be heroes, and it's really addictive to be the 'Leader of the Free World', or 'The Vanguard of Progress', and not just another country like any other. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Stavka means 'tent'. So the original meaning was that it's the tent where the big bosses are. This became the idea of a 'headquarters', both the physical building, and the metaphorical organisation.quote:It was official communist policy that all non-communist governments would be, and must be, overthrown in blood soaked revolutions. This is not a rhetorical exaggeration, it was open and official policy both before and after the war. It was funded, it was attempted, and any success was loudly boasted about. Comintern was pretty much suppressed from the late thirties (like, its leaders and activists were literally shot or handed to Nazis to be shot), especially with the Nazi-Soviet pact. Official policy or not, Stalin considered international communism to be just another tool. In 1943, the official position was: quote:The historical role of the Communist International, organized in 1919 as a result of the political collapse of the overwhelming majority of the old pre-war workers' parties, consisted in that it preserved the teachings of Marxism from vulgarisation and distortion by opportunist elements of the labor movement.... But long before the war it became increasingly clear that, to the extent that the internal as well as the international situation of individual countries became more complicated, the solution of the problems of the labor movement of each individual country through the medium of some international centre would meet with insuperable obstacles. Indeed, from the mid 1920s, the USSR adopted the official policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country After and including Stalin, the USSR has been pretty happy with loving over communist groups or governments to serve Russia's national interests. Some people were true believers, for sure, but the idea of a global confrontation between communism and non-communism as ideologies is mostly a cynical facade.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I think you're reading back history here. We now know communism is going to fail very badly, but back then it was sincerely believed to be the future. The Cambridge spy ring said they became spies "to be on the winning side." The Red Orchestra spies were also ideology driven. Every western democracy had an active communist party. I agree that Stalin was in it for personal power, but there were a lot of true believers. The Comintern came back after WW II (under a different name, I think). Having an active communist party, or the existence of a few radicals, in many countries doesn't not mean the Soviets were committed (and especially, committed officially) to armed revolution in other countries. Official policy was actually that the soviets were to act in opposition to Imperialism. Cominform was not the same as Comintern. Socialism in One Country was what endured, and partially what led to the Sino-Soviet split. (Indeed, the rejection of international permanent revolution is a large part of what the whole split between Stalinism and Trotskyism was about. Stalin murdered the idea of a permanent revolution with an icepick.) Enough of what you have said is totally wrong, by now, that I'd suggest you do some reading on the subject, or start presenting sources for what you are talking about. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:All I'm arguing is that there were real, committed communists which drove the movement back in the day. It wasn't all a pack of cynical lies, many people really thought it could work. I don't think that's at all a controversial position. I agree that a lot of the leaders in general, and Stalin in particular, didn't feel that way, but you can make that argument about the leaders of almost any political system. Er, you said quote:It was official communist policy that all non-communist governments would be, and must be, overthrown in blood soaked revolutions. This is not a rhetorical exaggeration, it was open and official policy both before and after the war. It was funded, it was attempted, and any success was loudly boasted about. It wasn't. It wasn't official policy, it wasn't unofficial policy. Stalin absolutely hated the idea and would murder you if you were too public about it. Maybe a few footsoldiers believed in it, but they weren't generally calling the shots. I'd halfway argue that the only post-Lenin Soviet leader who actually believed in making communism work was Gorbachev, and we all know how that turned out. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Then how would you describe the Comintern? Comintern and Trotsky was butchered long before the Cold War broke out. It is simply not relevant. Soviet leaders did not talk the talk. They talked the anti talk. They busied themselves with pretending permanent revolution had never been policy, because the new branding of anti-imperialism was a much more effective angle. Edit: Unlike nasty mean America, the USSR stood, they claimed, for peace and minding your own business! Hence the secret nature of Soviet support in Korea and Vietnam. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
WWIII touched off by Greeks invading and conquering everyone would be pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Was the battle of Tours really that vital in stopping the Umayyads from advancing further into Europe? It seems like they had overextended themselves and there was some serious instability going on around the Caliphate. Incidentally the BBC has a podcast about that up right now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iot
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Chivalry did not exist in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Many historians argue it did not even exist in the 11th, though I take the view that it did in a nascent form by the reign of William Rufus at the latest. You misread what he said. He meant that the promotion of Frankish cavalry as being decisive at Tours was an anachronism beloved by scholars during later chivalric times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
If Britain did join in the war, it would have been much later, anyway, and probably would not have escalated to the extent of getting the US involved. France would also have more of a get-out-clause, I think, if the Germans never encroach far upon their territory, so I think more likely Britain would have encouraged the two sides to seek a peace than wade in itself. With the defeat of Russia, Germany essentially would have attained its initial war goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I doubt direct control of the US can be maintained long term, anyway. Eventually a Canada type arrangement will probably develop.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I have a lot of sympathy with that sort of view. Don't forget also the absence of the Spanish flu and the millions of deaths that caused.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Some people think that it largely incubated in the trenches and had such an effect on people because of wartime shortages and lowered immune systems after living in mud for years. I ain't no doctor, but that's what I've seen people claim. Well, see e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340389/ Remember that overseas travel (and indeed, travel within one's own country!) was much less common back then. So a viral outbreak would tend generally to die down as a localised incident. This one didn't, because you had millions of people and animals travelling all over the world and being in close proximity to each other. A lot of people and animals in close proximity also gives the virus opportunity to mutate and gain virulence, and all the evidence suggests this is exactly what happened. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Not as much stupid as overly cautious, but the lack of balls on Admiral Troubridge when pursuing the Goeben had repercussions rippling across Europe for decades. He's the naval equivalent of that chemist that invented both leaded gasoline AND CFCs. If he had attacked, the engagement would have probably turned out like the Battle of Coronel - a total massacre for no good effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel Troubridge was facing a force that outranged him, had more armour, and was faster. He had no chance. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Was there any popular military fiction in the pre-modern age? I suppose Romance of The Three Kingdoms might vaguely qualify. Was there anything elsewhere?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
I suppose maybe some sort of distinction should be made with pseudo-mythologies that were not read as non-historical at the time? And I don't think King Arthur stories discuss much about the battle tactics etc? If I'm not mistaken?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 22:40
|
|