|
Can I grab the SS Narwhals because it's swimming in the ocean and causing a commotion because it is so awesome. I hear it would beat a polar bear in a fight and can even stop Cthulu eating ye.
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
The awkward moment when I realise SS Narwhals (yes I will add the s every time) got hit by a torpedo on the first day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Is there any sort of global map? I'm following what's going on on each front but I'm having trouble trying to put it together.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Drone posted:If they could have avoided war with Russia, then I think they'd have been able to get some kind of peace deal that was favorable, though I bet the war would have continued for far longer than 1945 if that happened. The Nazi state would not have been able to sustain itself in peacetime though... its massive budget and entire economic system was based on an unsustainable model of loot and plunder that would not have been able to continue over long-term periods of peace. And those things were what kept the Nazis tremendously popular among the people. The German consumer economy proper wasn't even really put on a wartime footing until around late '42 or early '43, aside from having to do without certain food imports like bananas or coffee. Oh really? I would have assumed a Russian attack on a defensive Wehrmacht at its 1940 strength would have been goddamn awful for the Russians? (I understand an answer to this is offense was significantly stronger than defense in WW2 and if that's the answer, fair enough) And is there an alternate where the Nazis just don't even try to engage in operation Sealion at all and attack Russia in March of 1940, giving them a good 6 months without Winter substantially making GBS threads up their army? I should probably take this to the history threads but I literally know nothing other than how actual warfare works in the 1940s so I'd probably irritate everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Drone posted:Well first, in March of 1940, the Nazis hadn't even invaded France or the Low Countries yet. And they never really even attempted Sealion, it was never anything more than a plan on paper. My apologies, I meant May 1940 which was the planned start date and got my wires crossed somehow. (Assuming the Balkans are avoided or goes better) Edit: Again, this is all from the perspective of a guy who in another world didn't have an incompetent school that let him do history aged 17-18. I ended up an economics postgrad student instead and whilst I don't regret it, I always wonder. Natural 20 fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. Why did the Japanese choose to strike against the U.S. instead of just opening up a second front on the Russians?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Years back I watched some Doctor Who episode having had the show recommended to me by a friend (I did not end up liking it), set during the blitz in WW2 and the doctor held some speech about how incredible it was that as Europe was burning and being conquered by Hitler one tiny Island nation stood up and said "no". Is that the type of poo poo that British people are taught to belive about WW2 because thinking Britain only a "tiny island" (or whatever it was he said that was close to that) in 1940 is so incredibly disingenious it boggles the mind. Okay, to go on a long rant about the History syllabus in the U.K. In our schools we are taught a syllabus that starts with the Anglo-Saxon era and goes up to the Stuart era. So broadly from about 1000 A.D. to 1714 A.D. This is done in meticulous detail, to the point that we're memorising the names of Kings and Queens (Spoilers, it's always James or Henry unless it's a girl) and learning about how the peasantry lived. (Spoilers, it's always really poo poo). Broadly you're taught this from the age of 7 to about the age of 12. From Age 13-14 you're taught about Empire and the Wars. The huge huge problem with this is that this is far and away the most defining era of British history and the events that take place there colour the country to this day to a far greater extent than anything you've learnt before. Notably, the national curriculum at this level ALSO includes the French Revolution which is the most defining moment for their state as well. This means almost always you get a massively rushed curriculum wherein at the age of 13 you're taught a bare bones summary of certain aspects of the Empire and so at best you gain an understanding of maybe the slave trade and one other event, with no real knowledge of how we even managed to get these slaves to begin with, other than that they happened to be in Africa. I didn't know how the invasion of India even happened until I asked my dad. Age 14 you're taught about the World Wars, which in fairness, they do give you a year to study. But the narrative itself is completely and utterly focused around the Western Front. The narrative provided is centred around the idea that we were a tiny island holding off against Tyranny and the explanation I got as to why Hitler didn't invade the British isles is that he got bored and was crazy. If you recall earlier in the thread I asked a bunch of really stupid questions about operation Sea Lion as a result of this. Remember, we don't have any knowledge of how the Empire actually works I'll point out here that in a really stupidly expensive private school which ranks as one of the top three schools in the country, I was probably the best history student there during the World War period because I find that entire period incredibly interesting and the limits of my knowledge should be goddamn obvious because in reality I know poo poo all. At this point history becomes an elective subject. If you continue, from the ages of 15-16 you basically study Modern world history which is really really interesting but you're at the mercy of the exam board your school is choosing to teach with and the class you're in, so you have no real knowledge of what you're signing up for. I got to learn about American history from the end of the Second World War to the end of the Cold War and the rise of Nazi Germany following the Weimar Republic which was completely amazing. Unfortunately my school refused to let me do an additional A-level so I could take history from the age of 17-18 so I can't tell you about that. But the key here is that we spend about 5 years studying largely irrelevant periods of history wherein we have a bunch of inconclusive fights with France and lots of peasants lead bad lives. We have a year on the 200 year empire period and then another on the world wars before any uniform syllabus goes down the toilet. The history we have is therefore incredibly skewed because the impact (and horrors) of Empire aren't really explored and as such any later narratives we get are skewed by the perception that the Empire doesn't really exist. So when you get speeches about a tiny nation standing up to a superior foe people will lap it up. God forbid someone tells them about the 21 million casualties on the Eastern front.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Why is it that squads destroyed matters more than numbers lost? I keep on seeing the attacks on Changsha resulting in even losses but apparently they're going well? Isn't a disabled squad as useless for the next attack as a destroyed one?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Oh I understand, so the losses number doesn't represent only dead dudes or critically injured, but also dudes that just passed out and need some food and sleep to be back on the field? That makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
pthighs posted:It's time to start providing baby name suggestions for Grey (and, I suppose, his wife). I vote for Napoleon Jellicoe Hunter. Erwin Montegomery GreyHunter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Honestly, I just picked Narwhal so I could post Weeblstuff songs on the thread and have them be relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
I wonder what the hell happened to my SS Narwhal. It took a hit at Pearl but I would have thought it would be back in service by now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I saw Battleship twice. Once with my dad, and once with a friend just to see their reaction to that scene. I saw it for the amazing Battleship handbrake turn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:What an incredibly grim way to win. I choose to believe that surviving a third nuke gives the Japanese access to Kaiju with which they invade America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
So I missed out on like a years worth of updates. The last I saw Grey had lost his carrier fleet in an engagement and was commenting on the war beginning to turn yet apparently it hasn't? What happened?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:Grey, can you check to see if some of the lucky ship subs that haven't shown up in years are actually alive and operational, or sunk somewhere? These have all, apparently, been unseen in three or more years according to the Lucky Ships list. I'm Yorkshire Tea and I know the Narwhal ate a hit at Pearl. Perhaps it got scrapped?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 11:54
|
|