|
Should we go about compiling (a) a list of notable posters and their contributions and (b) a FAQ of commonly asked questions and link them to a reposted answer to that question?
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
What if that Sherman was a klan member who defected?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yo, Raenir, wrt questions + last thread... Thanks! I'll bookmark these!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
e:SlothfulCobra posted:Obviously when the Italian armies met on the field, they'd be in it to win it, but there was this whole extra financial dimension to inter-italian warfare because the Italian states had more money to burn than men. They were constantly buying out the contracts of enemy mercenaries, and Federico da Montefeltro actually made a pretty penny selling the promise to not fight against someone. ^^^  Foul Fowl posted:is there a good book to read about these mercenary armies? and also about italian city state politics during that period? Extra Credits did a one off episode on a fairly famous one And thus the mafia was born.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't really have a problem with what I've seen of Extra Credits, but how the gently caress do you do a video about Federico da Montefeltro without mentioning that he cut a chunk out of the bridge of his nose, to improve his field of view. You'll notice that this is actually reflected in his art!  And they mention it in their follow up Lies episode for the Opium Wars I believe. There's just so much they could always put in to each of their Extra History episodes that something always has to be cut; and while totally bad rear end the nose story doesn't really fit in with the narrative they were trying to tell; which is about the birth of the Renaissance and wealthy lords being patrons to early modern thinkers. So they do mention it, just not directly in that episode.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's pretty clear that virtually every time the German army is more circumspect and tries to slow the gently caress down to stop all this crippling attrition all it actually does it give the Soviets more time. Hell, destroying these huge pockets of Soviet troops and putting down millions of Soviet men is enough to buy the requisite time. And it goes both ways: what if Stalin was prepared to allow his generals to withdraw and prevent their encirclements? Returning to a previous conversation we had about the dude on a different forum who insisted that the Best Cultured And Intelligent People on the Planet and that as a result Hitler was just SO CLOSE to winning and our conclusion was "If the Germans could have won the war they wouldn't have been Nazi's"; at least the early shenanigans in the summer of 1941 are largely unavoidable in Stalin's Russia or lease it wouldn't be Stalin or Soviet Russia as we know it right? But the Kiev pocket though, surely that could've been entirely avoided by sending written orders at the get go to avoid wasting three days on confirming STAVKA's orders and maybe another 100,000-250,000 troops could have made it out to hold the Germans at bay during Case Blue? Ignoring Guderian's panzers lining up to attack in the north also seems like an easily avoidable thing, it's like the Soviets were like the Germans at Stalingrad and just really wanted to hold Kiev at all costs and ignored the flanks? I can't quite think of anything else though between 1941 and up until 1942 that comes to mind that would lend itself as an easily understood counterfactual as Kiev. I've heard that many of the more fruitless attacks in 41' may have helped to grind down the Germans and worsen their effectiveness for Typhoon from the attrition. e: SlothfulCobra posted:If Hitler was competent, he wouldn't be fighting Russia in the first place. At least not while he still had a war going on in the west. For the record you can notice the nose is missing in his profile view they have at different points of the video, and they do explain the story in Lies. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
How the crap did the Germans simply not just shatter in the Soviet Winter Counter-Offencive?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:She showed up on the same day a small town in West Virginia mysteriously vanished.  Were these books good?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Just finished a book about Stilwell by a butthurt Taiwanese historian. He makes the argument that as soon as it became clear that the island hopping campaign was a viable means of getting bombers in range of Japan, China got hind tit as far as Allied strategic priorities and lend lease aid went. The goal was just "keep China in the war" as opposed to "get Japan out of China." Without getting too deep into alternate history, it made me ponder that even if Japan had won the planned crushing victory at Midway and set up their impregnable defensive perimeter in the Pacific, they'd still have no guarantee of safety. Might have just ended up getting bombed/mined from the other direction. I'm having difficulty figuring out if this is even "wrong" from a military perspective assuming his premises are "right". 1. The CPC's and KMT's feuding throughout the 1937-1945 Pacific War was so dysfunctional to the overall war effort that the Americans weren't particularly fond of propping up the Chinese war effort if it meant Chiang mostly sitting on his hands in preparation of fighting the Communists. 2. Japan had something like over a million soldiers in China. The fighting in Burma and the islands was hard enough, why also fight them in China where they had their best troops and best supplied positions? Also those troops weren't going anywhere nor did Japan have the shipping to move them to fight on the Islands. Basically what were the Americans supposed to do? Also they tried to use B-29's to bomb Japan from China, it wasn't working.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:e: re CCP, he has a whole chapter that's just a very long list of every treacherous communication from US diplomats where they argue that the US should support the Communists. They range from the accurate "Mao is going to win anyway/ Communist China won't necessarily align with the USSR" to lol worthy "Mao isn't a 'real' communist and will enact democratic reform/ this will work out just *great* for the average Chinese citizen." The latter isn't entirely unreasonable, there was a US mission to Yannan and the CPC had tried really hard to woo the US mission over. If the US had taken a pragmatic approach to China much like the British did and didn't ignore the Chinese concerns regarding Korea I think China could have been opened up 20 years earlier. I think the Soviets were a big enough pain in the rear end between 1949 and the Korean War that even the slightest interest by the Americans to normalize relations would've been seriously considered with enough prodding by Zhou Enlai.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:And in modern Russian language Armata means a family of armoured vehicles. I now believe Armata shares an etymology with whatever the Russian word for Armadillo is and you can't convince me otherwise. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That totally ignores the point though. The industrialisation of the west was a bloody affair, but it was a long process that took decades to achieve. What happened in China was a man so deluded that he thought it was a smart idea to turn his country against itself, attempted to rush a complicated process without a firm understanding of how it worked which led to China being a much weaker nation by the end of the great leap forward. For the record GDP continued to grow during the GLF, not at the intended rate but "weaker" isn't entirely accurate either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:
I can't exactly find if this source I have Here presents GDP figures but it's assessment does provide a somewhat more nuanced view than "left the country weaker": quote:There were some gains from the Leap, especially in terms of learning-by-doing And other things like how the large cities were mostly unaffected or possibly benefited and so on. But I can't find anything that says or supports that national GDP grew during the Leap so I'm probably wrong there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
I'm having flashes and withdrawal symptoms, I want more updates on Operation Typhoon. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
The European Union is "worse" than Nazi Germany winning WWII?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Surely alternative rail lines would've been laid down if the Germans were getting near Moscow?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:They did get near Moscow though I think that there was probably some sort of contingency plan or study on what to do if it happened as Typhoon got close, but as the Germans neared the city wouldn't it have been clear around the time (Hoth or was it Halder?) the Germans got to their closest point they were likely out of steam?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Hey Gal, do you have a dream team of military masterminds? Like if money and chronological period no object would you create the best team of generals and colonels and junior officers who would win the 30yw in one fell swoop? Supported by the best astrologists and battle wizards, etc etc I'm curious if Zhuge Liang would be able to wrap up the 30 YW super quick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
At Stalingrad when Manstein was trying to relieve the pocket, Paulus is commonly said that had he been willing to disobey orders he could have broken out; Soviet Storm seems to imply that the Germans never got close enough to the pocket for an attempt to have worked. Did the Germans have any capability of breaking out?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
My only issue with Hoi4 is that it mechanically seems to suggest going full on Deep Operations but then undercuts itself in that you can't assign commanders in a way that's efficient. I liked having the "Theaters" act as "Fronts" for the USSR and then each Army inside it be a corps level organization for achieving specific goals. So I might have two corps of 6 tank divisions each with a corps of 6 infantry divisions with artillery to act as my breakthrough force and then have two corps of motorized infantry behind the line to go fill in the gap and I repeat this along the axis of advance. But then I run out of Generals and then eventually it gets unwieldy once you have 500-600 divisions running around and I have to consolidate to armies of 24 which I find silly. I miss Hoi3's system in this regard and hope they add more depth for customized approaches to command. But I must say, Hoi4 is very impressive when it comes to logistics, often I find myself brought to a dead halt by poor infrastructure/supplies instead the enemy/AI managing to mount a resistance, to the point of having to keep 100+ divisions in the rear to prevent "traffic jams".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:That's 50 years too soon at least Prussia versus "Germany" maybe? quote:Apologies for using Jeremy Clackson Why? Face punching aside he's a good presenter in that and I like his genuine appreciation for military history.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
We use pigeons for utility. What about hawks? Stab someone's eyes out?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Petra wasn't the only girl, the Shadow books retcon it to there being a lot more. Remember that the age groups too, these kids start at a very young age and only begin to enter puberty when they're transferred to Command School/Tactical School; and are constantly monitored. But Card wasn't really aiming for complete realism there, in Ender's Game he wanted the consistency of what the audience expects from the genre of a military training experience but with younger characters for contrast. If it doesn't seem right that's kind of the point. I wouldn't suggest writing to "correct" another book, that's rather presumptuous. Rather you should look at it as "This book covered these themes, and created this sort of contrast or made this point, I think it would be interesting to go a different direction." The most important thing is to write an enjoyable experience for your audience, accuracy is only of nominal importance unless you really know you're subject. Inspiration though is always good, everyone is inspired by something, so just write.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
On the other hand, I've heard the Germans continued to pay royalties to the British for the proximity fuses used to take out British bombers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
The 100 Years Ago Today Subreddit talked about the Brusilov Offencive, does anyone know if anything about the Russian preparations and strategic conditions going into it, strategy and so on, that maybe highlights or foreshadows Russian strategic and operational strengths? Like could you look back at it and see "Aha, and this is why Bagration."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How effective were fortifications on the Eastern Front? Did the Germans build any on territories they occupied? They fortified a bunch of towns and then ordered troops to defend them to the death, the Soviets just bypassed them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
So I was watching some videos from "Military History Visualized" narrated by a German dude, I don't recall in particular if any of the ones I saw rang any alarm bells but of course his comments appear to be inundated by cancer. I linked Ensign Expendable blog and got this response: quote:(Previous Comment before I linked to the blog)  We appreciate you Ensign Expendable. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Link him to that article where some SS general admits that German reports were bullshit and everyone overinflated enemy forces in order to get more supplies, plus then overinflated enemy casualties to get awards. My googlefu is failing me, do you have any specifics?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:EE has caught a live one on his blog. Stay tuned! Haha, I wonder if he's the same person I was arguing with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Sigh, my googling is failing me. In Hoi4 I want to try to structure my divisions as some optimal version of what the Soviets used but I can't seem to find anything. Does anyone know what was the structure of a 1943: -Tank Division; what's the difference between a Guards vs. non-Guards? -Infantry Division. -Motor-Rifle Division?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:was that actually the MHV guy? A lot more political then I expected from him. The comment was from a random youtube commenter, MHV narrator only strikes me as slightly political, but it isn't something I can put my finger on without rewatching it. Ensign Expendable posted:On mobile, so can't really get into translating it, but this page is what you need. Thanks! Does the page you link also mention what a Heavy Tank breakthrough division looks like? edit: Putting it into google translate, I see "Brigades", "Shelves" (Regiments?) and "Battalions", Hearts of Iron 4 operates on a division-is-four-regiments structures. Would a "Brigade" be my version of a "Division"? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I want a military scifi thriller from the perspective of an army that uses Deep Battle, is that so hard to ask for?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would think that Turtledove's repeated copy-pasting of WW2 history means he actually managed to do that at some point, albeit unintentionally. Maybe in his Stalingrad expy? I actually experimented and modded in his Hitler's War series into Arsenal of Democracy and it was fun and the front lines came disturbingly close to where they were in the books. I should do it again for Hearts of Iron 4, I'm just not sure how to mod in the switching of France and England from fighting Germany to not, than to it again. The problem with Turtledove is that we rarely have the right PoV characters or amount of details/exposition to see the differences in how armies fought; and sometimes I suspect a little Popular History at times. Like it's usually "A company of infantry with a few tanks advanced up to the Germans until one or two of the tanks blew up and the infantry had to retreat" if the campaign isn't going well and "The tanks managed to blow up the AT guns and kept going, running over the trenches as the enemy beat a retreat." Ralph Peters is the closest I've seen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
I had fun with Red Orchestra, I liked Kurson pocket where our team attacked in waves. The lack of realism in BF1 at least makes it easier to justify minority and women representation as fighters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I think the people who attempt to argue "Mah raelism/immerzon" for why Battlefield 1 shouldn't be inclusive are idiots, especially because BF1 is not a realistic game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Hypothetical question time: 1. If D-Day failed and the Allies switched their focus to Italy, could they have actually pushed past the Alps into Austria? Would air superiority sufficiently slow down the German's ability to supply and move around that the defencive advantages of Mountains would've been neutralized? 2. If the Berlin airlift never happened and someone else was in command in Korea who stopped at the parallel would the Cold War still happened? I think Khrushchev had wanted detente and Eisenhower was friendly with Zhukov but McCarthyism and the Korean war/Berlin airlift kept that from happening. Was the Cold War an inevitable result of the Soviet system or a result of them picking fights?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
I dunno, I think both questions are reasonable if ill phrased. How much have mountains/hills mattered to the might of the US military on one hand and was the Cold War at all plausibly avoidable on the other?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Everyone knew where the Germans were going to strike, the real secret was when, and they blew that one too. The Soviets knew the start of the operation down to the hour and were able to fire an artillery barrage on the Germans just as they started advancing. My dad likes to tell me that the Soviets were watching the Germans economic situation regarding wool with the idea that if the Germans suddenly started acquiring a large number of winter uniforms then that was clear evidence they would be attacking; and this partly contributes to the surprise since the Germans didn't do this. How true is this? e: Also silly Wehrboo is posting again, he claims that Hitler should have delayed the invasion by an entire year; wouldn't this had been catastrophically worse for the Germans? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Poster my dad is dead wrong as usual. The issue was logistics, not the lack of winter clothing. Winter is a thing that occurs all across Europe every year. To be specific, its usually the argument that it was the "nasty Russian winter" that saved the Soviets and that this was somehow Hitler's fault. Did the Germans deliberately choose not to supply the forces invading the Soviet Union with winter uniforms? Was it actually the case that they couldn't?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
I decided to just go ahead and post Disinterested's and Bobo-Fett's posts (Don't worry I credited you guys), and by the way apparently David Stahel is a liberal? Because whelp! quote:Raenir, I reject everything you say as untrue and proof of not only being ignorant, but of having unsound judgment. You pretend to quote from what you regard as historically "authoritative," but your sources are in fact unreliable and unsound. The authors whom you quote were just the kind of liberal scholar wannabes who try to make a name for themselves by seizing on any excuse to go against the established wisdom. It is sadly apparent that your teachers never taught you how to think critically and properly weigh evidence for yourself. You can only go by what someone else says, and you select only those who agree with you. You may claim you have refuted me a thousand times, and it will still not be true. I have given you sufficient evidence for you to see that your contention that the Germans never came close to winning WWII is absolutely stupid and contrary to what every really intelligent and informed person knows. (And historical sources do verify that advance units of the German army did reach the point where they could see the domes of the Kremlin.) You are a pitiable example of how irresponsible liberal teachers and authors can victimize students. I have tried to explain to you why what I said was reasonable and borne out by the real facts of history. But to you it is all just a matter of childish ego. You seem incapable of engaging in mature debate. It is all just a game to you*. You do not seem to care about what is real and true. That is what is wrong with all liberals. * Literally 24 hours ago posted: quote:I spent several years wargaming WWII, especially the Russian Campaign, so I know what I am talking about. Hrrm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 05:28
|
|