Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›13 »

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

fartknocker posted:

Holy poo poo, it�s like something out of anime.

I had wondered how such a kind-of-ugly design got picked. Now I know!

# ¿ Dec 8, 2020 06:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 02:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

If you mean the nitty gritty on how they got the stuff up near Hans and Fritz, I believe most of the supplies on the Eastern front were hauled by horse wagon. There were some trucks but I have to assume those were for critical supplies.

I think the only fully motorized army was the USA. They had some horses but not, like, for hauling supplies as a primary mover.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2020 23:35

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

people kind of always have a weird conception of fortifications either "working" or "not working" - this came up before in the tower discussion

a wall around a city is meant to keep people out and protect your poo poo. a wall along a border is meant to raise the resources required for an enemy to cross it. an enemy may cross the wall but that does not mean the wall was not successful overall.

Right, it's like a lock on your car. If someone is hell bent on stealing your specific car for some reason (say to get at the ten million dollars in bearer bonds they know is in there somewhere - whether by truth or by meth) it is a question of how they will accomplish it, unless the cops intervene. However, if they're looking to steal a car, your car with the nice locks and so on will be more effort than the jalopy three spaces down.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2020 21:36

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

oXDemosthenesXo posted:

If you want to unlearn the "men running aimlessly at machine guns for four years" trope I highly recommend Battle Tactics of the Western Front by Griffith.

Turns out they didn't just try the same poo poo over and over. During those four years war changed by the week, and huge effort went into learning and teaching new tactics.

Wasn't the problem more that there wasn't really a good tactic to be had in the face of this, at least in the sense of one weird trick to beat the breastworks (Jerry HATES it)? Tanks aside, of course.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2020 04:30

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

gohuskies posted:

No, there absolutely were tactics developed to get your guys into the enemy's trench line that didn't require tanks. There were a bunch of different ideas tried (that the book goes over) and they figured out what worked the best. The bigger problem was that there wasn't ever much of a way to ever exploit a break in the enemy lines. Pre-WW1 this was the cavalry's job, post-WW1 tanks did it, but for most of WW1 there wasn't really an effective exploitation arm that could take advantage of a breakthrough to quickly cause encirclements, take out command and control, etc, that you need to break out of the static trench warfare situation. Renault FT tanks and a million new American soldiers maybe/probably could have done it if the war had gone into 1919 like most people expected but Germany collapsed before that happened.

Yeah, better way to put it. I remember reading that the Germans basically added tanks to their infantry tactics from the end of the war to make ~the blitzkrieg~

# ¿ Dec 18, 2020 04:49

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Uncle Enzo posted:

Thank you. Those are both reasonably plausible. Understandably there weren't (and aren't, really) a lot of good ways to stop massed armor with strong air support, particularly in 1940 where that was basically new especially at that scale. My feelings don't matter of course, some situations really are unsalvageable (IJN/IJA in 1945) but it really sucked to think that France was hosed on day one.

Of course the moment instead of The Fall Of France we get "horrible pitched battles, France is dumpling in men and tanks and planes but they're still in the fight so far" we're on to straight theory crafting, no one has the slightest idea how things would have gone then. It's such a big break with our history, but it's a tiny bit comforting that it could have gone differently.

I have seen people act like WW2 was this preordained inevitability in every detail beyond the most trivial and it is like, no, that is not true. It could have gone quite differently, even if the geopolitical facts of " :ussr:

very large, :911:

also very large and much harder to bomb" meant there would be few happy endings for Hitler.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2020 05:58

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Chamale posted:

Did the Nazis ever strafe an inflatable army and uncover the ruse?

If they're at the point of strafing the balloons, you've already succeeded!

# ¿ Dec 19, 2020 00:52

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

PeterCat posted:

What are people's thoughts on the Time Life WWII series? For me it's more nostalgia and I'm sure it's just the popular version of the war in the mid 70s,vut I'm still tempted to get a set.

Is it the one with the black and white photo covers? I remember those being visually gorgeous though I don't recall the history's quality.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2020 23:56

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Gaius Marius posted:

It did get in at least one battle in it's short life so at least it wasn't a complete failure like the Vasa.

Does the Roma count as a complete failure? It did a fair bit to advance the Allied cause, from a certain point of view, although it would have been nice if it could have shot some shells at Germans.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2020 13:53

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Question about War War 2: Did the Soviets have much strategic-level bombing capacity?

The context here is "Why didn't the Allies bomb the death camps," and my guess looking at a map is that this has less to do with any kind of malicious or apathetic motive and more to do with most of the big murder sites being on the other side of Germany, and thus hard to reach with bombers launching from old Airstrip One.

However, the Red Army would have been much closer, but I have not heard of Soviet bombers much or at all until the post-war era.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2021 04:34

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Looking at it it sounds like the Allies did bomb the chemical factory using camp labor but didn't bomb the main camp itself, and entirely after they had gotten bases in Italy. It's an interesting ethical question, because while yes, bombing the death camp would certainly kill a lot of people, it might also let some of them escape - and that could well be better odds than they're going to get from, you know, the death camp.

On the other hand the Allied powers did not seem to really get the full scope of what was going on, and if it was "just a big concentration camp supporting bullshit logistics and a chemical plant," well then they just did Hitler's work for him.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2021 05:39

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I think the argument with bombing the camps has always been, you'd probably kill most of the prisoners presently in the camp. But if the place was sufficiently flattened you might save the people who were going to be put in there next, and the people after that, and so on. Slowing down the murder by a couple of months would mean hundreds of thousands more alive when the Allies reach Berlin.

It is also possible that if you are, suddenly, and specifically, bombing Hitler's murder factories, the Nazi leadership might freak out and try to stop the killing. Himmler, I remember reading, abruptly started trying to treat several columns of Jewish prisoners with far greater care, because they were going to be bargaining chips.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2021 06:37

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Tulip posted:

I thought that the "declaration of war was for ceremonial/spiritual/legal purposes" was always what was meant, going back to Plutarch.

Yeah, the fact that Sparta was, based on the archaeology, in a continuous economic decline from like 550 BCE until the Romans took over tells us that we shouldn't expect their economic decision making to be particularly good.

Plus given the history of the US after it banned the importing of slavery (and thus couldn't rely on other countries producing slaves for it), having death patrols around for slaves seems to be the sort of economic negative that slavers are willing to tolerate to protect the social order.

Yeah, I figure this is the difference between "the helots were in generational misery" and "the Spartans would have run out of helots as a labor force in a few years if ALL of this was being done ALL the time."

# ¿ Jan 7, 2021 20:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Anyone landing in a neutral country was interned and potentially traded for resources/aid/etc, or casually 'escaped' to fight again. Depends on the side and country they landed in.

Not sure about what happened if/when two opposite sides were in the same camp/prison. I assume they just wouldn't do it to begin with but I can't say I've read anything on the topic, much less heard of any book that covers it.

The likelyhood seems low for both sides to be in Switzerland, if only because they defended their air space and the Germans/Italians didn't fly into it very often, from what I recall. Whereas an Allied bomber would purposefully go to Switzerland if it was their best bet at staying alive/not being captured.

Sure, you might still be imprisoned, but at least its not German jailors.

This reminds me of the Irish policy regarding downed pilots, which was, broadly, that if they were on a non-combatant mission they would be released, and if they were on a combatant mission they would be interned. This was considerably easier to do for Allied pilots, since they could claim to have gotten lost or perhaps be ferrying planes. This was much harder for the Germans, and so a number of German pilots were hosted (and the Germans were billed).

# ¿ Jan 9, 2021 13:16

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

It would seem that there would be utility for paratroopers but that utility is along the lines of having a force suddenly pop up on their flank just before the big push. Didn't old Adolf stop using them due to the comical casualty rate?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2021 03:34

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ScottyJSno posted:

Here is a recent military histroy question.

I been playing Cold Waters, a sub sim game about a fiction NATO v Soviet WW3.

My question is how many torpedoes would take to sink a Sub? I am sure it depends on the warhead size and how close the explosion is but, the answer is one right?

Far too variable unless you're talking about a nuclear torpedo, in which case, well yes, of course it would only take one hit. Most ships do poorly when a nuclear explosion, even a small one, occur against the hull.

However I think one good hit would likely be able to "mission kill" almost any submarine even if the submarine did not sink and could be repaired or limped back to base. Maybe you'd want two for one of those big Red Octobers, but even there you might well disable it long enough for Reagan to nuke the red away.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2021 01:19

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Hyrax Attack! posted:

During WWII I know Italy had a weak industrial base, especially compared to Germany. Is there a reason Germany didn�t do more to equip their ally with decent guns and tanks? Even if Italy couldn�t build these themselves, having access to better equipment seems well worth the investment for Germany in getting better results in Africa and other fronts. Especially with how the US wasn�t shy about sharing with their allies.

Was Mussolini insisting on using homegrown stuff? I�m reading The Day of Battle and the Italians were trying to defend Sicily with Renaults and seems like would have been in Germany�s best interest if they had Mark IIIs.

In addition to the whole "hitler was a lovely ally" factor, most of Italy's actual major actions were early in the war when the Germans were still pulling their Wehrpantsenfurmachenzesecundunweltkrieg back on, so there was probably less of a discrepancy, and Germany actually had a call for whatever equipment they could manufacture.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2021 06:39

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

They probably figured Mussolini would send such tanks either to Africa (And they had someone there to manage German tanks themselves, thank you) or to Yugoslavia to shoot at partisans (in which case, why not give him the second-tier or lightly used tanks?)

# ¿ Jan 18, 2021 08:05

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Cessna posted:

You could, in theory, because again, tanks have engines that require air. Put enough burning liquid in there and things will go badly for the tank.

You are vastly more likely to die in the process of attempting this than the tank.

Sounds like we need nuclear tanks.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2021 21:51

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Xiahou Dun posted:

I have a dumb question even by the standards of my dumb questions :

I've been listening to the Behind the Bastards mini-series about various fascist take-overs (worth putting on some headphones while you do the dishes or clean the bathroom), and it got me to wondering if there has ever been actually good, benevolent dictator?

A few riders on this :

1) Any argument like "Yeah they did bad things but on the net they advanced [Cause]," doesn't count no matter which way it goes. If they had some kind of minor kerfuffle but mostly just rebuilt the housing and education infrastructure we can talk, but no tanky (or even worse, Nazi) bullshit.

2) No monarchies. I mean literal dictators.

So like a dictator who gained power and spent their term of power doing beneficial things to the populous (e.g. health-care reforms or whatever) and then didn't do anything evil. This is non-political curiosity just cause I can't think of an example. I'm left with stuff like, "Uh, I guess some of the ones in South Korea and Taiwan weren't totally terrible, and Castro had his problems but he did make a good hospital system?????"

Your problem is that this situation probably only exists in crisis situations, and even if the dictator resolved the crisis adequately, most people would not give up that power afterwards. A really successful dictator became the founder of a dynasty until pretty recently, and arguably the Kims in DPRK are a dynasty now even if they do not call themselves by the specific name, "king."

There have certainly been good kings and queens by this standard, however. Probably the most recent clear example would be Pedro II.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2021 06:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Gaius Marius posted:

Depending on your definition of dictator there honestly hundreds that could qualify as benevolent. Lee Kuan Yew for example managed to transform singapore from a backwater microstate to one of the leading economies in asia.

Augustus as emperor ended decades of civil war and put in place a system that was a hell of a lot more stable than the absolute poo poo show that was the late republic.

MacArthur's leading of the occupation was a hell of a lot more successful than any of his campaigns, and while the postwar period isn't exactly bright in Japan they did manage to get enough food and medicine that they staved off a large portion of the mass starvation that would've taken place if the war would've continued.

You also kind of get the problem that in order for a leader to be considered "Great" and memorable, they have to address some bullshit or other. If there are no profound crises or major problems, they get recorded as "ok I guess," because "steered the ship of state for a long period without any major disasters" isn't a thing that gets you a commendation.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2021 06:59

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Xiahou Dun posted:

I think you've misunderstood the question. It's only mine in the sense that I posed it, and I specifically said not monarchies (or something that's equivalent).

I'm literally asking if there is some version of like Franco (or whatever) that got into power, redid some railways and then just drank tea and was chill about it.

Specifically because I can't think of a counter-point I'm curious.

Tito, maybe? I don't know if I'd call Tito good, mostly because I don't know about all the poo poo he got up to, but I certainly hadn't heard anything particularly bad about him. I also don't know if you can call Tito chill.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2021 07:16

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Mystic Mongol posted:

So my question is, given that he's old enough that he doesn't give a presentation as sharply as he used to, and I'm not a film student and will be recording on an iPad, are his concerns accurate? Would people be interested in hearing what he has to say about his experiences during and after the war? I'd cut any dead air but the final result would be pretty rough.

I know I and my father would be interested.

You might tell him something along the lines of 'everyone's all spread out and locked down, but there's still interest, and it'll be out there for anyone to find'.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2021 23:27

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

feedmegin posted:

Also your average German citizen had a family member out on the Eastern front or knew a neighbour that did. Yes censorship existed of course but that's not watertight and anyway doesn't help when someone is home on leave.

I believe the Germans' policy for recuperations were to send the injured guy home or at least into the right area while he grew back the flesh the Bolsheviks shot off, so it would probably be straightforward to get a pragmatic estimation of how much of that was happening, even if they all kept mum. Which I doubt they would have.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2021 00:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

White Coke posted:

I read an argument that if France hadn�t fallen so quickly and it had instead taken months or a few years to beat them then Britain might have been more willing to surrender. I�m not that convinced since Britain was kind of open to a truce, but maybe a few years of continental bloodletting would have worn them out in a way that being forced off the continent didn�t. Wether Germany comes out ahead and in any condition to take on the USSR is purely speculative, but weren�t the Soviets in the middle of re-arming and re-organizing when Barbarossa happened?

I don't know if Hitler's pride would have let him do it but if they'd gotten bogged down I could see him going for some big last move followed by grandly allowing France to sue for peace etc. If he'd been smart he would have consolidated or something, possibly having clawed back Alsace-Lorraine or annexed the Netherlands along with the revanchism and seizure of a chunk of Poland in the East.

Honestly these chronologies are probably better assessed from the perspective of "Hitler dies or is incapacitated permanently at some point, what does Germany do from there," rather than trying to postulate a gayer, blacker Hitler.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2021 23:12

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

bewbies posted:

I'm curious what you think the real losses were to the CSA when they lost the river.

Hope of continuing to expand their territory and the influence of their peculiar institution without a navy. :v:

Had the CSA won separation I would imagine they would be at war with Mexico within 20 years, potentially less.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 03:36

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Taking the decisions of French leadership into account, it was only a matter of time until they made another strategic fuckup.

The most comedic turn of events would be Mussolini backstabbing Hitler but getting owned in the Alps anyways

"At long last, I have accomplished what the Caesars could not: I have subdued the Germans," said Mussolini, probably while gesticulating like a god drat cartoon character.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 11:23

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Lawman 0 posted:

Right taking other peoples poo poo was considered good politics by many politicians and generals in Germany and the thought was that increasing the average size of a farm plot would improve social stability in Germany.

Adolf Hitler: Strong advocate of land reform

# ¿ Feb 5, 2021 01:33

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Arquinsiel posted:

I would not put it past them to just build a giant fort around the outback and slooooooowly shrink the internal space so they could murder emus.

An Emu would be emperor within 3 generations.

Emuperator

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 23:20

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

feedmegin posted:

V1s also existed though.

Would the V1 have qualified as a cruise missile as we understand them? I thought it was essentially a highly specialized aircraft but you could have, in theory, put a guy with a joystick in front.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2021 22:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I've learned something here today and for that I will never forgive any of you.

I suppose you can do a pretty clear contrast with a ballistic weapon though, huh.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2021 23:20

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Cessna posted:

With perilously few exceptions, their stuff WASN'T comparable. The Allies make decent, practical uniforms, the Nazis make tailored crap that restrict their soldier's movement, require more upkeep, and cost vastly more in time and materials. The Allies make a canteen, the Nazis make a smaller one with a bad cover and hooks to put it on their belt so it clangs when they walk. The Allies make a simple button, the Nazis make one made from separate pieces of metal that require paint and special tools to attach the loop on the back, which breaks when you wear it. The Allies make canvas shoulder straps to carry their gear, the Nazis make the same thing out of leather, but also make suspender straps inside their uniforms that require special sewing machines and aluminum hooks - but which can't even carry the gear when the soldier wears a smock. And on and on and on, everywhere.

I can think of maybe a handful of things that they made that were passably decent designs when evaluated strictly from an engineering perspective, but even these only brought more evil to the world. And these are more than canceled out by the overwhelming amount of shoddy garbage that the Nazis made, from their crappy tailored-but-ill-fitting uniforms on up. And when you name one "good" Nazi design the Allies came up with dozens of better designs to defeat it.

I think it is probably telling that with the exception of the V2, which required a lot of specialized knowledge, all of their designs were easily replicated or their innovations taken on after the war. Though now I wonder about Italian and Japanese design in this vein.

My understanding is both those guys wore khakis basically instead of whatever ridiculous costumes the Wehrmacht was putting on. The Japanese had those distinctive caps.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2021 21:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Helter Skelter posted:

If you do some searching for "explosive musket ball" you can turn up some information on similar developments in the US around the same time, like the Gardiner musket shell during the ACW.

From what I can tell, this was basically a Minie ball-like projectile with a fulminate mixture as the bursting charge inside. It had a small opening at the base filled with a slower burning powder mixture to act as the fuse. The projectile would then explode a second or two after firing. It doesn't seem like these were tremendously reliable.

From the Wikipedia article, I'm guessing the Russian developments followed a similar line, but they apparently figured out how to make them explode on impact before long. You can find cutaways of WWII-era explosive ammo, and I suspect the basic design principles for these could have been similar:

This is a lot of conjecture in absence of actual information, mind you.

I remember some goof-rear end Anarchist Cookbook thing encouraging you to drill holes in the front of your rounds and put in plastic explosive to create explosive bullets. Same energy. Were these supposed to hit a guy and blow a hole in them? Mini-shrapnels?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 12:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

SerCypher posted:

I wonder who would win between the two with similar equipment. My money is on the Imperial Germans.

They would be more resilient to time paradox casualties, that's for sure.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2021 02:25

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

aphid_licker posted:

As in the runup to WW2 the gambles ze Germans had to take to have a theoretical chance of winning should have tipped them off that they should probably rethink their whole approach to the problem of having other countries in Europe.

OK, you go tell Hitler that.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2021 11:22

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Raenir Salazar posted:

I was watching random clips of Man in the High Castle since apparently it's ended and so my youtube reccomendations have blown up with them, but how plausible is it that into 1962 Japan doesn't manage to produce their own atomic bombs when IIRC in the real world Japan had made decent progress but was probably mostly constrained by the same lack of resources Germany was dealing with due to fighting the second world war? How does Japan need twenty years and borrowed designs to finish their own? China coming out of the civil war and occupation needed 20 years but Japan it seems like shouldn't need that long?

In addition to "because otherwise the plot doesn't happen," I don't think the West was generally aware of how far along the Japanese nuclear program was when Philip K. Dick was writing, and VALIS did not see fit to correct him.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2021 01:29

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Platystemon posted:

IJN wins because the RN cannot project its full strength to the Pacific and cannot stop Japan from achieving its war aims.

Didn't the IJN, in fact, smoke the British and just did not make an attempt on India or Australia? Like if NB Hispanic Tojo had not engaged the Americans and had instead decided to call it a halt and consolidate their gains (and had not gotten assassinated for his trouble) the entire Pacific theater looks way different.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2021 11:40

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Comstar posted:

At what point was the Japanese going to say "Ok we won. Now let us discuss terms". As far as I can tell, that day would never happen.

The big problem would be the maniacs in the Army, who might express their displeasure with civilians/navy folks saying "Alright we conquered half the Pacific and secured Indonesian oil, let's call it good," by killing them. But as KGJr said, they did have pretty clear goals and they even had a plan that might well had worked in a vacuum; and I imagine they would have a fighting chance if it was just them against the British.

That was not the fight they ended up getting. I expect this is why Yamamoto said "Y'all are loving up" when they told him to attack Pearl Harbor.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2021 12:48

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Nenonen posted:

This but also Ireland so they enforce a blockade.

President Joseph Kennedy probably could convince them to join without invasion.

But then the British invade to secure their flank, Churchill vaguely rumbled about it and got whinged at by de Valera. Now we have a new front!

# ¿ Mar 10, 2021 06:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 02:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

More like Milfgaard.

zoux posted:

No that's Serpentor.

"These long-dead genetic blueprints were combined to produce a clone with the genius of Napoleon, the ruthlessness of Julius Caesar, the daring of Hannibal, and the shrewdness of Attila the Hun, and the aggressiveness and impulsiveness of Sergeant Slaughter."

Who would you put in your Serpentor?

Subutai, Mordecai Aneliewicz, both Augustus AND Agrippa, and Pedro II.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2021 23:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›13 »