|
Puukko naamassa posted:Wasn't Korea pretty firmly in Japanese control by the beginning of WWI, what with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910 and all? Good point. I was falling asleep as I wrote that. But I think the US and Japan would have butted heads over the Pacific and Korea eventually even without the formation of the Axis, probably around the same time they actually did.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Christoff posted:Was there ever land attacks on the mainland US? Aside from those Japanese bombs in the jet stream that kids threw rocks at and blew up in the 50s or 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign Christoff posted:I know we shouldn't see the Nazis in a positive light. But obviously they were doing something right to get as far as they did ... How the hell did they have the manpower to fight so many countries? Well, the short answer is that, in the end, they didn't have the manpower to fight so many countries, which is why teenagers and old men were being conscripted into the Army at the end. Actually, even before that, they didn't have the manpower to fight so many countries, since there were severe manpower shortages throughout the war, even in necessary industries. There was a vicious tug of war between people who wanted laborers from the occupied territories to provide labor for the war effort, and people who wanted to starve all the non Germans to death so that Germans could take their land. As far as starting an un-winnable war which ended up with Germany being bombed into ruins, I wouldn't say the Nazis did anything right. Christoff posted:What was Hitler's ultimate goal? The whole eugenics, pure race, Roman third reich or whatever? Like Starship Troopers the movie? Was there ever a large thought throughout the world that the Allies would lose in Western Europe? If we lost the war there what would have happened then? Would they have had to made a land invasion on North America? Germany could never preform a land invasion of North America -- they lacked the naval capability to do that. Hitler's ultimate goal, laid out in his 'second book', was the integration of Eastern Europe into Germany as 'lebensraum', which would require the deaths of pretty much everybody already living there. Tooze, Wages of Destruction: The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Economy posted:The first and most fundamental assumption of all SS territorial planning from 1939 onwards was the assumption that the integration of Eastern European territory as German Lebensraum required the removal of the vast majority of the native population. Meyer's Generalplan did not speak specifically of the Jews, but their removal was clearly taken for granted. Only in Poland and the Ukraine did the Jews constitute a minority large enough for their removal to significantly alter the population balance. Meyer addressed himself primarily to the majority Slav population. For Poland he foresaw the removal of 80-85 percent of the native population. This was to be followed by the expulsion of 64 per cent of the population of the Ukraine and 75 percent of the White Russian population. The Russian territory around Leningrad was to be completely depopulated. The various drafts of the Generalplan differed in their estimates to the actual numbers involved, but the lowest figure was 31 million displaced people, not including the Jewish minority. More realistic estimates, which allowed for the natural rate of population increase over the period in which the programme would be implemented, put the number of victims at closer to 45 million people. There was still no absolute clarity about the final destination of the displaced populations. But what cannot have been in doubt is that the process of 'evacuation' would involve mass death on an epic scale. Only those capable of work were of any interest to the Germans. By the end of 1942 the talk was of the possible 'physical annihilation' of entire populations, not only the Jewish minority, but the Poles and Ukranians as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:Watch Das Boot. And read All Quiet on the Western Front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
Humanoid Female posted:And read All Quiet on the Western Front. And watch Stalingrad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
I'm going to share with you guys two lesser known "Hitler being a dick in war" moments that I enjoyed learning about. 1) Once Paris was taken and the French were ready to surrender, Hitler really wanted to rub it in. He located the train private carriage of Marshal Foch, which was being held in a museum in France. It was in this train carriage that the WWI Armistice was signed. Anyways, he had the wall of the building blown out, and had the train carriage moved to the same spot it had been when the Armistice was signed. When it came time for the surrender, Hitler sat down in the same spot the Foch had sat, listened to some of the proceedings, and then left before the official surrender took place. 2) While the above was basically harmless, and was just Hitler being a douche, this one is a bit more intense. A little bit of background: One of Mussolini's promises that he delivered on was that Italian war vets would have some land given to them. He did this by draining a marshy/swampy area in Northern Italy, and it became pretty decent farmland for a lot of Italian veterans. Now, once Italy had surrendered after being invaded by the US, Hitler was both extremely pissed off at the Italians, and wanted make sure US troops would have a hard time advancing north. First, he had all those veterans temporarily moved out of the area. Then, engineers were brought in to make the Italian pumps start re-flooding the marsh. However, that was not enough. They also started filling the area with ocean water (the reason for this I will get to in a moment). After they were done flooding, they took whatever equipment they wanted back to Germany and destroyed the rest so that it would be very difficult to undo their work. Now, the reason for the salt water was that scientists had discovered that the mosquito that carries malaria only bred in a salt water environment. A marshy, salt water environment would be the perfect breeding ground for them. Then, to ensure a malaria epidemic, they had all the stockpiles in the area of the only treatment for malaria sent back to Germany. After that they moved all the Italian veterans back to their homes (many of which were flooded). As expected, most of them died from malaria. Freeze fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Mr.Brinks posted:How far away were the Nazis from acquiring weapons of mass destruction in whatever fashion? I remember something about heavy water? They were very far away. One of the major reasons is that Hitler's anti-Jewish policies caused massive brain drain - most of the world's most talented and intelligent nuclear scientists were cultural German Jews. Also, the Nazis spurned theoretical science as 'Jewish science' in favor of pragmatic research in mechanical engineering, chemistry, and so on. Not only did the Nazis have second-tier nuclear talent, but Hitler never really pursued a bomb program with vigor on the assumption that the war would be won by the time the bomb was developed. If he or any other German commander changed their minds later, they would have disregarded the idea as being too far away to matter in the short term. There was never a credible Nazi nuclear threat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
Freeze posted:I'm going to share with you guys two lesser known "Hitler being a dick in war" moments that I enjoyed learning about. I was reading last night about the Nazi sabotage of Naples. When the Nazis withdrew after the initial landing and battle of Operation Husky, they wanted to render Naples useless for military purposes. This included sinking every ship in the harbor at the bottom of the harbor, then seeding the harbor bottom with explosive poo poo to complicate salvage. In addition, they left time bombs ticking all over the place to detonate days or weeks after the liberation. When Allied engineers restored power to Naples, there was a big worry that the Nazis had tied bombs to the power grid to be triggered by fresh current. Luckily, they weren't that dickish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
apathetic poster posted:I was reading last night about the Nazi sabotage of Naples. When the Nazis withdrew after the initial landing and battle of Operation Husky, they wanted to render Naples useless for military purposes. This included sinking every ship in the harbor at the bottom of the harbor, then seeding the harbor bottom with explosive poo poo to complicate salvage. In addition, they left time bombs ticking all over the place to detonate days or weeks after the liberation. When Allied engineers restored power to Naples, there was a big worry that the Nazis had tied bombs to the power grid to be triggered by fresh current. Luckily, they weren't that dickish. I vaguely remember reading about the potential for bombs to have been linked to a power grid in Italy, but I didn't know the full story. Those timed bombs must have been a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
Puukko naamassa posted:Wasn't Korea pretty firmly in Japanese control by the beginning of WWI, what with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910 and all? Yeah. Also in 1905, the U.S. and Japan made a somewhat secret agreement where basically U.S. would let Japan have Korea, if Japan lets US have the Phillipines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Admiral Snackbar posted:An attacker desires to fulfill a specific purpose, whether it be complete annihilation of the enemy, a negotiated settlement, the occupation of territory, etc. This purpose must be achieved for the attacker to be successful. The Defense, however, has a negative aim: to prevent the attacker from achieving his goal. First great threat, I've enjoyed reading it and learning. I have to disagree here. Clearly insurgency can be used as an offensive strategy and involves defined and specialized tactics that make it both a political and military situation. The Cuban Revolution (and Che's failed experiments in Africa and Bolivia) were offensive insurgencies as you defined the term. The insurgency in Afghanistan (later on the Afghan-Pakistan border) clearly is offensive in nature as evident by their world wide terror attacks. With out getting into the greater debate, I don't think it's fair to declare the second intifada a failure while it's still on going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
Mustang posted:According to Wikipedia the Japanese suffered 4 times as many military deaths as the US and that's counting both the European and Pacific theaters. Things just got harder for the Japanese as the war went on. The Battle of Midway crippled the Japanese Navy with the loss of 4 aircraft carriers. The Japanese fought to the death, whereis American troops are very dedicated to bringing casualties off the front lines. So of course Japanese fatality rates are much higher, its more accurate to consider casualties plus deaths for America. That would mean 1/3 American troops, who had nearly a 2:1 manpower advantage over Japan, were casualties. Smoothrich fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jun 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:The insurgency in Afghanistan (later on the Afghan-Pakistan border) clearly is offensive in nature as evident by their world wide terror attacks. The Afghan insurgency is a defensive fight against a foreign force. If you're conflating them and the Taliban, and by that stretch the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda attacked the US with clear defensive goals and reasons from US/Israeli aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:The Afghan insurgency is a defensive fight against a foreign force. If you're conflating them and the Taliban, and by that stretch the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda attacked the US with clear defensive goals and reasons from US/Israeli aggression. I'm not conflating them with the Taliban, I was referring to Al Qaeda. I understand their goals as the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and to reduce/destroy western (American) culture. Those seem offensive rather than defensive to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 02:21
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I'm not conflating them with the Taliban, I was referring to Al Qaeda. I understand their goals as the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and to reduce/destroy western (American) culture. Those seem offensive rather than defensive to me. Al Qaeda make up only a percentage of the insurgents in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
Christoff posted:
They had quite a few 'heroes' I suppose. Many of the best and most famous of WW2 generals were working for the Germans - big names include Guderian, Manstein, Rommel, Hoth, and dozens of others. If you're looking for Rambo/Audie Murphy/Joe Basilone types then the Nazis had plenty and a big reason is because they had plenty of targets. The Krauts had over 100 fighter aces that had over 100 kills - I don't think a single Allied ace ever broke 100. The top was Erich Hartmann who had I believe 352. A crazy bomber ace is Hans Rudel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudel He had ridiculous videogame scores of thousands of vehicles/boats/everything blown up and even flew with metal legs after his own got blown off. Michael Wittman was a tanker who blew up hundreds and hundreds of enemies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittman quote:Also, just how large was their military? I mean they had troops from Germany, Austria, and where else? How the hell did they have the manpower to fight so many countries? Germany's army got pretty large and also by the end they were drafting children and old men. Besides, Germany and Italy were not the only European Axis members. Fighting on Germany's team (with varying levels of involvement) were Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Croatia, and a number of puppet states they set up throughout Europe like Slovakia. Even 'neutral' countries like Spain contributed thousands upon thousands of troops to the Axis. Germany also fielded huge numbers of foreign recruits. Way more than 50% of the vaunted SS (Who are always blonde Aryan supermen in movies) were not German. There was even a Muslim SS legion alongside units from ALL OVER Europe (they even had a tiny British Legion). Lots of people joined up with the Germans not out of any sense of German patriotism but just because Germany was fighting the big bad USSR and everyone wanted to stop the Red Hordes. Others joined just for the food and paycheck. Thousands of former Soviet citizens joined because they thought killing off the USSR would give their homelands a better chance at becoming independent - this was a big reason why lots of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc joined. Then there were also diehard Nazis from all around Europe. The Nazi racial propaganda inspired quite a few Scandinavians as they were considered Aryan as well and some of the Western European SS units were among the best of the German army, like the Charlemagne (French) and Viking (Scandinavian) SS divisions. quote:I think this was touched on as well. But how was the whole Italy, Nazi, and Japanese thing? I mean, were they just like "alright we got this part of the world you take care of that one since we have a common enemy and different goals." Hitler wanted a pure race, correct? So what was supposed to happen if the allies were beaten and it was just them left with control of most of the world? Would Germany have had to gone to war with Japan or would they just occupy different parts of the world? Hitler's territorial ambitions were largely focused on the East. He wanted living space for his people so large swaths of Polish and USSR territory would be directly annexed by Germany if all went as he wished. Other parts of Europe would remain in the sense that they would be German puppet states or simply sympathetic to them (you *better* get on board if the Germans win against Russia). He didn't really ever have world domination as his goal and even stated quite often that he admired the British Empire and believed it had a place in his new world order. I imagine if all went perfect for the Axis relations between some of them might cool but there would likely be LARGE buffer states throughout central Asia in between German and Japanese spheres of influence which would reduce conflict. There would never be an invasion of the continental USA. For that to happen the Axis would have to take out the USSR and manage to take out or make peace with the UK. If the US was the only major force left for the Allies then it would be time for a negotiated peace and the terms would not be too terrible for the USA either. Probably a similar cold war situation afterwards but with much more of the world taken over by unfriendly powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:Germany's army got pretty large and also by the end they were drafting children and old men. Besides, Germany and Italy were not the only European Axis members. Any good books on this kind of stuff? ADMIRAL SNACKBAR, do you think war is futile?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:
How close was the UK from being invaded before the Americans joined the war effort? I remember being taught that the only reason Germany couldn't invade Britain was because the RAF was still in control of the British sky. If the RAF fell, would there have been anything to stop a German invasion? How did their Navy stack up to the German one? College Rockout fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Admiral: * Has war changed, or does war - war never change? * Any comments on the development of atomic weapons in WWII? I recall hearing that the Germans were barking up the wrong tree and that the Japanese were distressingly far along the tech tree, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 06:27
|
|
|
College Rockout posted:How did their Navy stack up to the German one? The German navy had very few major surface combatants and stuck to commerce raiding for most of the war. Germany's only realistic option would have been to continue submarine warfare and attempt to force a favorable end to the war. Any invasion attempt would have been a suicidal waste of resources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
Why was Hitler so preoccupied with lebensraum? Was Germany really overpopulated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
College Rockout posted:How close was the UK from being invaded before the Americans joined the war effort? I remember being taught that the only reason Germany couldn't invade Britain was because the RAF was still in control of the British sky. If the RAF fell, would there have been anything to stop a German invasion? How did their Navy stack up to the German one? The onyl time they ever 'seriously' considered it was right after the fall of France in the summer/fall 1940. They never really had a good chance of succeeding at that stage as their navy was not able to stand up to the British in open battle which they would need to do if they wanted to SUPPLY any men that landed on the beaches. They also would need to defeat the RAF and come up with enough landing craft which of course they couldn't really. If they concentrated their force on dismantling the British Empire across the Mediterranean they might have forced a more favorable outcome but by that point 90% of German attention was focused on Russia. Once the USA got involved England became a gigantic armed camp rather quickly and any further invasion hopes were futile. RettroShocka posted:Any good books on this kind of stuff? There is a good book called The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. Pretty easy to find on Amazon and the like. There is a whole whirlwind argument about how much of it is exactly true but it is an autobiographical novel about a French teenager who joins the German army and eventually serves in an elite division on the Eastern Front for 3 years and is quite a realistic and brutal portrayal of how unrelenting and nasty it was to fight in Russia. Worth checking out. Not too many that I can name off the top of my head right now but an author that is quite 'readable' who writes well about the War in the East is Antony Beevor. I own 2 books of his about Berlin and Stalingrad. There are of course some decent war movies from the Axis side, mostly from Germany but the Winter War is a decent one from Finland (although set during the Winter War, which was a side-conflict during the war but eventually molded into the big one). I've also seen an interesting Italian one called El Alamein about the big turning point in N. Africa vs. the British. AgentF posted:Why was Hitler so preoccupied with lebensraum? Was Germany really overpopulated? Not really, but he was planning for the future. A great emphasis was put on fertility by the Nazis and they heavily encouraged cranking out babies to be future workers/soldiers of the state. Hitler also was interested in uniting all Aryan types from across Europe into his Reich including all the scattered Volksdeutsche. He planned on clearing out large areas of the East through genocide/starvation/deportation and moving in German settlers to repopulate. So no they weren't too crowded but they were certainly looking to the future. Germany didn't have vast overseas colonies like France and England so if they wanted land to exploit then they had to look east.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Why was Hitler so preoccupied with lebensraum? Was Germany really overpopulated? Actually, kind of. That is, Germany was far more densely populated than France, and while it had more arable land than Great Britain, it had a much larger rural population. Germany less arable land per farmer than France, the Soviet Union, Britain, Denmark, the United States, Canada, and the Irish Free states (Canada had ten times as much arable land per farmer, the US six times, and Great Britain close to double.) The cities were overcrowded, and the German standard of living was lower than the United States or even Great Britain. (You may know that the Volkswagen was the Nazi party's promise to the German people that they could own a car. What you may not know is that not one was ever delivered to a civilian.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Basically picture D-Day but at 100x scale, and with nukes. Exactly how many of those 40 divisions would be left after nukes fall from the sky like candy? Their surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki essentially saved the Japanese from the nuclear extermination of their race. Right here: http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 Great book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:a force that was unnecessary because Russia took forever to mobilize, just as von Schlieffen had foreseen. Actually, I think the general consensus is that the Russians mobilized far more quickly than Schlieffen had anticipated, and in fact had invaded Germany, which is why additional troops were transferred to the east. Rather, the extra troops probably weren't needed, because the Russian armies that were mobilized were so poorly prepared and led that Hindenburg and Ludendorf took care of them easily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
College Rockout posted:How close was the UK from being invaded before the Americans joined the war effort? I remember being taught that the only reason Germany couldn't invade Britain was because the RAF was still in control of the British sky. If the RAF fell, would there have been anything to stop a German invasion? How did their Navy stack up to the German one? Not very, Operation Sealion was pretty much a big bluff, although not everyone realized it at the time and British morale was very shaky at the time-had the RAF been swept from the skies it is possible Churchill's government would have fallen and England been forced to the peace table. Even in the event of German air supremacy the invasion was pretty impossible. The proposed invasion flotilla was basically a bunch of barges capable of about 3-4 knots-even a single destroyer getting loose in the fleet could have killed thousands of men all by itself, possibly just by sinking barges with its wake, and the Royal Navy had large destroyer forces in the Channel at the time. The Home Fleet at Scapa Flow would have taken longer to arrive but it still could have made the trip in time because the Germans couldn't have brought enough troops and especially supplies in a single trip to finish the job. Plus the German Navy had been basically gutted by the campaigns in Denmark and Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik Hitler was more concerned about getting starting the showdown with Russia anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
I actually read a really great analysis about how Sealion could never have possibly succeeded at TWCenter.net of all places. I'll try and find it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 06:11
|
|
|
Are MPs really as badass as Lee Child shows them in his Jack Reacher books?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
DeceasedHorse posted:Hitler was more concerned about getting starting the showdown with Russia anyway. Yeah, it's worth noting that Hitler was hoping that the Brits would join him as an ally. When they refused him he was pretty annoyed, but his heart was never really into invading and conquering them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
Greedish posted:Are MPs really as badass as Lee Child shows them in his Jack Reacher books? Hah gently caress no, they're just police dudes in the military.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
A lot of interesting reading, there really is a lot to learn. I have 2 "questions" I hope someone will want to expand on: 1- Junio Valerio Borghese, Il Principe Nero, your thoughts on him. (BIAS ALERT: I would have his children) 2- The Xma MAS, your thoughts on this unit. (BIAS ALERT: I've never been anywhere near a conventional war but if I ever was a soldier, this is the unit I'd have loved to serve in) My aim is not to enter a debate over the above, my aim is just to see the way they are perceived outside my political circle. Thank you for the time you will dedicate to this. Forgot to add, my father fought in WW2 and eventually surrendered to the Americans in Sicily (he fought in North Africa and later in Sicily where his unit was protecting some ammo in a cave and resisted attacks until they saw US troops. He explained to me that as a unit they had decided to wait for the Americans to surrender because it would have been their best bet to survive) He was then taken back to North Africa and later to the US where, as he said, he was treated fairly and could work and even leave camp occasionally) Ultras Lazio fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jun 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:1- Junio Valerio Borghese, Il Principe Nero, your thoughts on him. (BIAS ALERT: I would have his children) Wow an actual fascist
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
Well, generally, Mussolini has very very negative connotations in the educated world, while not on a level with Hitler, he's still considered a very bad guy for all that murdering and oppressing, y'know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
What were Napoleon's military innovations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 15:31
|
|
man
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I actually read a really great analysis about how Sealion could never have possibly succeeded at TWCenter.net of all places. I'll try and find it. There's a pretty good article here: http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/why_sealion_is_not_an_option.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
dokmo posted:What were Napoleon's military innovations? Off the top of my head the biggest I can think of is canned food to simplify logistics. Napoleon also came up with the idea of formalizing street addresses as sequential numbers, at block intervals, with odds and evens on opposing sides of the street.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
dokmo posted:What were Napoleon's military innovations? Chances are good that I'm confusing this with somebody else, but didn't he also "invent" the levče en masse? It was a huge, widespread drafting system that gave him access to around 1 million new soldiers per year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Chances are good that I'm confusing this with somebody else, but didn't he also "invent" the levče en masse? It was a huge, widespread drafting system that gave him access to around 1 million new soldiers per year. Did it have any special characteristics that weren't present in other, large-scale drafting systems? I can think of drafting systems going back thousands of years; the Legalists constantly stated that everybody had to be strictly registered in public records at birth, and erased upon death, and one major purpose was so they could be called up for war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:2- The Xma MAS, your thoughts on this unit. (BIAS ALERT: I've never been anywhere near a conventional war but if I ever was a soldier, this is the unit I'd have loved to serve in) Probably explains the hard on for Fascists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
dokmo posted:What were Napoleon's military innovations? Napoleon probably gets the most credit for his innovations in use of artillery, since he was originally an artillery officer. Massed artillery is the one most people seem to point out, but I'd argue that his use of the more mobile horse artillery is more "innovative" I guess would be the word. He made some significant advances in logistics, supply trains, maintaining mobility, and such. His armies generally marched faster and longer than his opponents because they were able to stay supplied. Being able to outmanuever someone is obviously a huge advantage. Honestly, I'd say his biggest innovation was his use of propaganda. He created a propaganda machine that could somehow take him loving up royally by making a dumb advance and having his rear end saved by someone else and having it look like it was one of his brilliant plans, a la Marengo. Modern political machines ain't got poo poo on Napoleon (and Talleyrand). Perestroika posted:Chances are good that I'm confusing this with somebody else, but didn't he also "invent" the levče en masse? It was a huge, widespread drafting system that gave him access to around 1 million new soldiers per year. I wouldn't say that he did much different than has been done before here. He did, however, use more foreign soldiers than is normal. The lands he conquered came under his command and in many cases became vital to his armies. The Polish cavalry played a very important role in the Grande Armee. Like was mentioned earlier, its really more likely that Napoleon's biggest innovations weren't military at all, but based on the Code Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
stimpy posted:Honestly, I'd say his biggest innovation was his use of propaganda. He created a propaganda machine that could somehow take him loving up royally by making a dumb advance and having his rear end saved by someone else and having it look like it was one of his brilliant plans, a la Marengo. Modern political machines ain't got poo poo on Napoleon (and Talleyrand). If you're interested in really understanding how Napoleon was so successful, look up Talleyrand. I've read a biography or two on him, and holy crap did he do a lot for France. He was one of the biggest BAMF in history 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2010 11:51
|
|