|
Rabhadh posted:Care to cite a refrence? That kind of thing was easily staged for propaganda The picture is from a series of 300 photographs which were classified until recently. Taken by finnish war photographs on the Finnish part of the East Front, the content of the pictures was seen as too grisly and possibly harmful to Finnish-Soviet relations. Wikimedia has about 70 of them for viewing. I think we can count on the propaganda angle as not being present, because the pictures were in fact classified and not published at all during WW2.  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Declassified_photos_of_the_Winter_War
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:
Good thing these can still be found online, even if they're pretty horrible to look at. Majority of them seem to be from the Continuation war though, and the file names are google-translated as the uploader admits in the Discussion section, which leads to some confusing things (like the picture of the civilian victims of Soviet partisans having the description "Dead partisans transported to cemetery").
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but you seem well-informed on historical weapons. A question that's always bugged me is why pre-rifling firearms trended to grow longer and longer until we have the half-pike bayonet musket. Was it only a deliberate effort to make the musket a melee weapon on its own or does a longer firearm have some benefit for the shot? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Paxicon posted:Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but you seem well-informed on historical weapons. A question that's always bugged me is why pre-rifling firearms trended to grow longer and longer until we have the half-pike bayonet musket. Was it only a deliberate effort to make the musket a melee weapon on its own or does a longer firearm have some benefit for the shot? Longer firearms are more accurate, and pre-rifling this was virtually the only way to make the weapon more accurate(though muskets are more accurate than people often say, training of the period eschewed aiming for firing more quickly). The bayonet's no good for accuracy itself, but in general, the longer the gun the more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Longer firearms are more accurate, and pre-rifling this was virtually the only way to make the weapon more accurate(though muskets are more accurate than people often say, training of the period eschewed aiming for firing more quickly). The bayonet's no good for accuracy itself, but in general, the longer the gun the more accurate. Yeah but theres one thing i've been wondering about; the ammunition for the smoothbore weapons at that time was leadballs, most of wich were made in the field by the soldiers themselves; many armies in the 18th and the 19th century included "Make your own ammo" kit in the basic equipment handed out to soldiers. In other words, there was no standard calibre size. And if the calibre of the ball was smaller than the barrel it was fired from, the balls would bounce rapidly on its way out, and veer off in a random direction upon exiting the barrel... Then, in theory wouldn't a longer barrel mean LESS accuracy, since the ball gets to "bounce" more on its way out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
They used a press to make the lead ball, so it was at least within the neighborhood of standard. It's not like they grabbed some molten lead and rolled it in their hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
Paxicon posted:Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but you seem well-informed on historical weapons. A question that's always bugged me is why pre-rifling firearms trended to grow longer and longer until we have the half-pike bayonet musket. Was it only a deliberate effort to make the musket a melee weapon on its own or does a longer firearm have some benefit for the shot? Let's clear a few things up: Longarms, excluding those explicitly designed to be short, stop increasing length well before the invention of bayonets, either socket or plug. From about the late 16th century, with the widespread adoption of matchlock muskets, to the long-serving Brown Bess of the 18th and 19th centuries lengths remained fairly similar, at between 40" and 45" of barrel. Longer firearms, past a minimum needed to impart direction (for argument's sake let's say 2") are not mechanically more accurate. That is determined by other factors like barrel quality, powder quality, and bullet quality. The increased weight of the firearm with a longer barrel does make them slightly easier to keep steady, though they tire you out more quickly, effectively negating any battlefield advantage that provides. It is also easier to shoot accurately with more distance between the front and rear sights, because you can see minor changes in your sight picture better that at a shorter distance. Not really applicable to the weapons in question. Last, weapons with stocks are also easier to shoot accurately than those without. Arquebuses had stocks, albeit rather crappy ones. Still, better than nothing. None of this is mechanical, it is all user-based. The bullets did not "bounce around" inside the barrel. Because they were seated against the powder, they would follow whatever direction said powder pushed them in. If they were undersized or not wrapped in wadding they were more likely to veer off in one direction or other because they had uneven force applied to their surface. Ammunition was not made by swaging until the mid 19th century at the earliest. It was instead, in the period in question, made by pouring molten lead into moulds like these.  With all that sorted The length increased over the course of the 15th and into the 16th centuries for two reasons: It was understood that gunpowder expands when it burns, and the more it burns in a confined area, like a barrel, the faster it, and thus the bullet, went. This, however, is only true so long as the powder continues to burn. Once it stops burning the bullet has nothing but its own inertia to propel it forward. At this stage more barrel simply impedes the bullet through friction. This provided the drive to make the barrels longer, but not too long. The second reason was that it had become easier to make steel of adequate quality for musket barrels. This means that the barrels can get thinner and longer without fear of cracking under the pressure of firing or the wear and tear of everyday handling. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The bullets did not "bounce around" inside the barrel. If the ball was not the calibre of the smoothbore barrel, or was not properly "stuffed" it would be propelled at an uneven angle from the get-go and "bounce" inside the barrel. Ofc i do not mean rubber ball random bounce, but "ricochet" erratically off the sides of the barrel. Like so: _______ / */\/\/\/ ------- (*being the ignition) Xiahou Dun posted:They used a press to make the lead ball, so it was at least within the neighborhood of standard. It's not like they grabbed some molten lead and rolled it in their hands. If you had actually read my post you'd see that i mentioned that the soldiers used a molding-kits, however these kits were cheap and had irregularities themselves no doubt, and they were often dirty and damaged. Thus, the calibre of ammunition made by these varied greatly. GyverMac fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:If the ball was not the calibre of the smoothbore barrel, or was not properly "stuffed" it would be propelled at an uneven angle from the get-go and "bounce" inside the barrel. Ofc i do not mean rubber ball random bounce, but "ricochet-like" movement in the barrel. Like so: Oh, my bad. I am not entirely sure what I thought you were saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Initially the bullets direction is most affected by the contact area around the base of the bullet as it leaves the barrel, if it's not the same all the way around, it will tend to veer in a slightly different direction, after that it's more affected by the bullet characteristics(spin, holes in the lead). As far as burning powder goes, if I load my 50 cal with 100 grains of Pyrodex in the 30' barrell most of it seems to burn, if I load 110 grains, a lot more powder gets blasted out the front and falls to the ground. I used cardboard on the ground to find out how much powder to use without wasting it. Retarted Pimple fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:If the ball was not the calibre of the smoothbore barrel, or was not properly "stuffed" it would be propelled at an uneven angle from the get-go and "bounce" inside the barrel. Ofc i do not mean rubber ball random bounce, but "ricochet" erratically off the sides of the barrel. Like so: Wouldn't ricocheting off the sides of a round barrel take more energy than rolling along the walls in a spiral-like fashion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
It all depends on how the blast pushes the ball around down the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
There's a lot of talk about China's militarization and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566 recently came up but I don't understand how any stealth fighter prototypes or land-based anti-carrier missiles matter when at the end of the day we have a nuclear arsenal fifteen times larger than theirs. The only thing it would affect is regional force projection, but US already has significant presence in Asia and war between the US and China or Russia and China would be so brutal it doesn't seem likely to happen. All of this is ignoring the realities of globalization and international economics. It seems more like China is developing an MIC proportional to its economic clout rather than any sort of power play, is this accurate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
Gaupo Guacho posted:There's a lot of talk about China's militarization and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566 recently came up but I don't understand how any stealth fighter prototypes or land-based anti-carrier missiles matter when at the end of the day we have a nuclear arsenal fifteen times larger than theirs. The only thing it would affect is regional force projection, but US already has significant presence in Asia and war between the US and China or Russia and China would be so brutal it doesn't seem likely to happen. All of this is ignoring the realities of globalization and international economics. It seems more like China is developing an MIC proportional to its economic clout rather than any sort of power play, is this accurate? Because they can sell that stuff to people we won't go straight up nuclear with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
Also there aren't many scenarios which include the US escalating to nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Because they can sell that stuff to people we won't go straight up nuclear with. Right. To expand on this, apart from its claim to the entirety of Taiwan, China's real territorial ambitions are quite modest and limited to things like potentially strategic mountain ranges abutting India, and islands in the South China Sea which are useful for extending their EEZ. The PRC is doing very well with it's present policy (using currency manipulation to build their economy), which would only be derailed by a shooting war. The real danger that China poses in a foreign policy sense is their displayed willingness to make economic partnerships with pariah states, which undermines the ability of the international community to put pressure on places like North Korea, Burma, or Sudan. Their arms industry is potentially a big part of this, because they're not doing it for war-fighting purposes but for the export market. Anti-carrier missiles in particular are a big deal because those are obviously intended for use against the USN, whose carrier fleet are pretty much the core of American force projection. Any time a situation gets tense somewhere in the world, the USA can send a Carrier Strike Group to be intimidating. If the PRC starts selling anti-carrier missiles to anybody who wants them it can change this calculus. If the missiles are actually effective, then the US has to be more cautious about putting its limited and extremely expensive supply of CVNs to work. Even if the missiles are ineffective, they can still embolden a country to have a go at resisting the US in a situation where they would have ordinarily quailed at the sight of a Nimitz Class cruising around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
But aren't the things China is doing just things on a smaller scale to what the US has been doing for 40 years? I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily if the US can't just get away with flexing its unparalleled military muscle around the world just to get what it wants, at least as much anymore. Maybe the US will actually have to *gasp* cooperate and compromise with the international community for once. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:But aren't the things China is doing just things on a smaller scale to what the US has been doing for 40 years? I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily if the US can't just get away with flexing its unparalleled military muscle around the world just to get what it wants, at least as much anymore. Countries like Sudan and Myanmar aren't even arguably the good guys. Giving them conventional weapons that would make the US and her allies think twice about intervention would just deepen the humanitarian crises that are occurring in those countries in the same way that nuclear weapons do for North Korea. As for cooperating and compromising with the international community, China does not do this in any way, shape, or form so I don't understand why only one side of the very complex equation is being singled out here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Countries like Sudan and Myanmar aren't even arguably the good guys. Giving them conventional weapons that would make the US and her allies think twice about intervention would just deepen the humanitarian crises that are occurring in those countries in the same way that nuclear weapons do for North Korea. True. I wasn't even thinking of china dealing like that. I was just really focusing on the poo poo the US does to intervene at the expense of other countries rather than the intervening they do to actually help. I hardly meant to go all "AmeriKKKa!!!" here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Gaupo Guacho posted:There's a lot of talk about China's militarization and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566 recently came up but I don't understand how any stealth fighter prototypes or land-based anti-carrier missiles matter when at the end of the day we have a nuclear arsenal fifteen times larger than theirs. The only thing it would affect is regional force projection, but US already has significant presence in Asia and war between the US and China or Russia and China would be so brutal it doesn't seem likely to happen. All of this is ignoring the realities of globalization and international economics. It seems more like China is developing an MIC proportional to its economic clout rather than any sort of power play, is this accurate? China is more or less the 'media darling' when discussing their military strength versus the United States. 15 times more nuclear weapons than them is a vast understatement. The US and Russia have 30,000~ nuclear weapons to the entire world's 200. These anti-carrier missiles have been around since the 1970s during the cold war. All of this stuff is nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Gaupo Guacho posted:There's a lot of talk about China's militarization and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566 recently came up but I don't understand how any stealth fighter prototypes or land-based anti-carrier missiles matter when at the end of the day we have a nuclear arsenal fifteen times larger than theirs. The only thing it would affect is regional force projection, but US already has significant presence in Asia and war between the US and China or Russia and China would be so brutal it doesn't seem likely to happen. All of this is ignoring the realities of globalization and international economics. It seems more like China is developing an MIC proportional to its economic clout rather than any sort of power play, is this accurate? Gwynne Dyer's excellent series "War" has a specific episode on this exact dilemma, I believe it's episode 5 "keeping the old game alive."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Countries like Sudan and Myanmar aren't even arguably the good guys. "Arguably" is an imprecise term. Ronald Reagan argued that the Guatemalan military was a force for good at the same time they were mounting a more-or-less genocidal campaign against unarmed indigenous peoples which eventually claimed 300,000 lives. The review of bad things America did/does versus bad things China does is pretty mixed. Guatemala was basically the worst US ally, but we had a wide selection of nasty friends. Meanwhile China has close ties of support to at least three states (Burma, Sudan, and North Korea) which are as bad as or measurably worse than Guatemala ever was. On the other hand, the US often actively encouraged crimes against humanity if we thought it would give strategic advantage against communism, whereas the Chinese and simply don't care what anybody else does. You might characterize it as the US being manipulative or even occasionally malevolent, whereas Chinese foreign policy is simply selfish and irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:"Arguably" is an imprecise term. Ronald Reagan argued that the Guatemalan military was a force for good at the same time they were mounting a more-or-less genocidal campaign against unarmed indigenous peoples which eventually claimed 300,000 lives. The review of bad things America did/does versus bad things China does is pretty mixed. Guatemala was basically the worst US ally, but we had a wide selection of nasty friends. Meanwhile China has close ties of support to at least three states (Burma, Sudan, and North Korea) which are as bad as or measurably worse than Guatemala ever was. On the other hand, the US often actively encouraged crimes against humanity if we thought it would give strategic advantage against communism, whereas the Chinese and simply don't care what anybody else does. You might characterize it as the US being manipulative or even occasionally malevolent, whereas Chinese foreign policy is simply selfish and irresponsible. Not to derail this into politics, but clearly "evil" (insofar as this term means anything) allies of the US also include Central-Asian dictatorships, and, during the Cold War, a large number of disgusting regimes that were every bit as bad as Myanmar (mainly in Africa and the Middle East). Also, the Chinese consider North Korea a liability. Their only real interest is to keep the DPRK somewhat functional so it doesn't collapse and cause a mass of refugees into China.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
IM FAT LETS PARTY posted:Not to derail this into politics, but clearly "evil" (insofar as this term means anything) allies of the US also include Central-Asian dictatorships, I was excluding mere allies and limiting the comparison to states which have an actual clientelist relationship with the USA or China. The fact that the US has basing and air transit agreements with Central Asian dictatorships in exchange for some kind of quid quo pro doesn't make the US morally culpable for their human rights abuses to nearly the extent that the US was responsible for Guatemala or El Salvador, or that China is for Burma or Sudan. US Compare bilateral relations like US-Turkmenistan or US-Kazakhstan to US-Guatemala or US-Chile (under Pinochet) and you'll see what I mean. quote:and, during the Cold War, a large number of disgusting regimes that were every bit as bad as Myanmar (mainly in Africa and the Middle East). Every bit as bad as Myanmar, you say? Which Middle Eastern or African client of the United States killed at least 100,000 of its own citizens and displaced at least a half million more as refugees? The Shah? Mobutu Sese Seko? The Saudis? quote:Also, the Chinese consider North Korea a liability. Their only real interest is to keep the DPRK somewhat functional so it doesn't collapse and cause a mass of refugees into China. At different times the US has considered various of its client states "liabilities." During the Guatemalan Civil War the US was so embarrassed by the behavior of the Guatemalan military that we briefly cut off military aid (so for a few years the Guatemalan commandos were massacring civilians with Galils instead of M-16s). Personally I don't think the slowly dawning realization that the DPRK is a liability makes much difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
I don't want to continue this derail to any regard, but an amazing thing that I read recently (in Niall Fergusons War of the World) was that the US supported the Khmer Rouge (and China) against Vietnam. I mean christ, thats politics at its lowest ebb.
Rabhadh fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I don't want to continue this derail to any regard, but an amazing thing that I read recently (in Niall Fergusons War of the World) was that the US supported the Khmer Rouge (and China) against Vietnam. I mean christ, thats politics at its lowest ebb. With respect to Cambodia it's not actually a derail, because the PRC backed Pol Pot for military reasons. It's somewhat disingenuous to criticize the USA particularly for supporting the Khmer Rouge because it was actually a matter of the USA following China's lead as part of the Sino-American understanding. All else being equal the USA would have preferred Lon Nol, the military dictator and apparent US vassal who ruled before the Khmer Rouge. Now, China was hostile to the Vietnamese communists on ideological and diplomatic grounds, because the Vietnamese were Marxist-Leninists and clients of the USSR. Vietnam represented a danger to China because they had a large, highly experienced, and (thanks to the USSR) well-equipped military establishment, and they were by far the most powerful state on China's southern flank. Even more threatening, their first move after conquering South Vietnam was to march into Laos and set up a client state, and without foreign intervention they could have easily done the same in Cambodia. In order to reduce the threat posed by Vietnam as a Soviet client state, the Chinese gave Vietnam it's own backyard threat by backing the Khmer Rouge, who were basically Maoist (though completely insane). After 1972 the PRC and the USA acted as allies against the USSR and therefore the US followed China's lead on Southeast Asian issues, including the Khmer Rouge. The fact is that nobody involved really cared about what Pol Pot was doing to the Cambodians. China didn't care as long as he was a pain in the rear end for Vietnam, and the US was just going to back China. In the end Vietnam intervened and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, but not for any humanitarian reason but because Pol Pot kept invading Vietnamese territory. Vietnamese forces basically curbstomped the Khmer Rouge in two weeks, prompting a reprisal invasion by the PRC. In spite of the Chinese devoting massive forces and their opposition being mostly made up of local militia rather than regulars, the invasion was difficult and both sides took heavy losses. This pretty much demonstrated that China had been right to worry and wise to try to maintain the Khmer Rouge as a hedge against Vietnam. Had there been a conventional war with the Soviet Union including a front against Vietnam, China would have been required to devote a potentially critical amount of strength to its south. So Pol Pot was a complete monster, but as Winston Churchill said when called out on his alliance with Joseph Stalin: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Lately I have come to the realization that Vietnam was/is probably the most hardcore country on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Lately I have come to the realization that Vietnam was/is probably the most hardcore country on Earth. This is correct. Contrary to someone's assertion far upthread, the Vietnamese were the only ones to defeat the Mongols three different times, and were thus never conquered by the Mongols. They did so twice by putting spikes in a lake and beaching the enemy fleet. Also the previous post contains much bullshit. China invaded Vietnam using their ousting of the Khmer Rouge as a pretext. Deng Xiaoping actually needed some cover because of political troubles, so he used a quick war to divert the public's attention. Many Chinese actually believe that Vietnam attacked China, and that China's was a defensive invasion. That's obviously the result of government propaganda. China got its rear end kicked because they had just come off of the Cultural Revolution and thus their training and gear were poo poo, and they were facing Vietnam's war-hardened army with relatively modern military technology. Seeing how hosed they were, the quickly declared victory and then ran away before they even reached Hanoi. There was no good logic, strategic or not, supporting China's actions here. Vietnam is actually an exceptionally "good" country, relative to just about every other one. Their only wars in the past 300 years or so have been defensive ones. I don't know about this making Laos into a client state business, can you please source that? I've never heard of that and it sounds like bullshit to me. Vietnam spent ten years in Cambodia after removing the Khmer Rouge. If they simply wanted to stop being attacked they didn't need to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Lately I have come to the realization that Vietnam was/is probably the most hardcore country on Earth. Their country is also topographically perfect for defence: Lots of hilly terrain and thick jungles, with lakes, swamps, rivers everwhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:Also the previous post contains much bullshit. Sure, let's hear it. quote:China invaded Vietnam using their ousting of the Khmer Rouge as a pretext. Deng Xiaoping actually needed some cover because of political troubles, so he used a quick war to divert the public's attention. Many Chinese actually believe that Vietnam attacked China, and that China's was a defensive invasion. That's obviously the result of government propaganda. I don't think anybody is going to argue that the PRC government doesn't lie to their citizens, but I don't know what "political troubles" you're talking about here. Also, if Deng Xioaping had these propaganda capabilities, why would he even need to have a "wag the dog" war? Why would he take the risk of fighting a country that was military quite dangerous and fully backed by the Soviet Union? quote:China got its rear end kicked because they had just come off of the Cultural Revolution and thus their training and gear were poo poo, and they were facing Vietnam's war-hardened army with relatively modern military technology. Seeing how hosed they were, the quickly declared victory and then ran away before they even reached Hanoi. China failed strategically as they did not achieve their main objective of forcing Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. It's debatable whether the Chinese lost tactically since they advanced a substantial distance into Vietnam and apparently forced local Vietnamese forces to retreat back on Hanoi. The official casualty figures for both sides appear to be fabricated so there's no real way of knowing how many people actually died. quote:There was no good logic, strategic or not, supporting China's actions here. LoC Country Study of Vietnam posted:Vietnam's decision to align with the Soviets together with its invasion of Cámbodia and mistreatment of the Hoa [ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam], provoked Beijing to "teach Hanoi a lesson." A "self-defense counterattack," mounted by China along the Sino-Vietnamese border on February 17, 1979, ended less than a month later, on March 5, when Chinese leaders announced that their objectives had been met and proceeded to withdraw their forces (see History , ch. 5). Despite the Chinese boast of having shattered the myth of Vietnam's invincibility, the invasion effected little more than the diversion of some Vietnamese troops from Cambodia. The bulk of the resistance reportedly was offered by local Vietnamese border units and regional forces. Outnumbered, they performed well, exposing significant weaknesses in Chinese tactics, strategy, logistics, equipment, and communications. In the final analysis, the results were far from conclusive. Peace negotiations were initiated following the disengagement of forces, but broke down several times before being discontinued in December 1979. So yeah... quote:Vietnam is actually an exceptionally "good" country, relative to just about every other one. Their only wars in the past 300 years or so have been defensive ones. I don't know about this making Laos into a client state business, can you please source that? I've never heard of that and it sounds like bullshit to me. Seriously? Throughout the Vietnam War the PAVN had multiple regular divisions hanging out in Laotian territory supervising the Ho Chi Minh trail and fighting the Hmong. Why do you think Nixon bombed the poo poo out of Laos? Now I don't have a history of Laos in front of me, but I googled it for you and something called "Library of Congress country studies" can be found online. Some highlights of North Vietnamese-Laotian relations include a full-scale invasion in 1958-59 in which the Pathet Lao (the Laotian Communists who took power in 1975) acted as auxiliaries to the Vietnamese regulars, repeated references to "North Vietnamese-Pathet Lao forces," the fact that Vietnam only withdrew troops from Laotian territory in 1989 (!), the Pathet Lao was originally a subordinate section of the Viet Minh movement under Ho Chi Minh, and so on. You can skim it if you want. The study implies that Vietnam has a tutelary relationship with Laos rather than a master-satellite thing: "Laos's dependence on Vietnam since 1975 could then be perceived as a natural extension of their collaboration and solidarity in revolution rather than as domination by Vietnam." But we're still talking about a patron-client relationship, and it has the benefit of hindsight perspective since the non-dominating aspect evidently became clear only after the withdrawal of troops in 1989. This would not have been clear in 1975, especially not from China's perspective. quote:Vietnam spent ten years in Cambodia after removing the Khmer Rouge. If they simply wanted to stop being attacked they didn't need to do that. I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Of course Vietnam intended to do more than merely prevent the Khmer Rouge from raiding the border--they wanted to take it over with a puppet government, and did so for a good ten years. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
We seem to be arguing from different angles here. I am arguing that Vietnam never did anything to deserve being invaded and that there is little evidence that they would have ever attacked China, even though they had the capability to do so. You are arguing that China was making sound strategic judgments based on nothing more than Vietnam's military strength and its alliance with the U.S.S.R. EvanSchenck posted:I don't think anybody is going to argue that the PRC government doesn't lie to their citizens, but I don't know what "political troubles" you're talking about here. Also, if Deng Xioaping had these propaganda capabilities, why would he even need to have a "wag the dog" war? Why would he take the risk of fighting a country that was military quite dangerous and fully backed by the Soviet Union? In 1979 Deng Xiaoping was very much still consolidating power after the fall of Mao Zedong. He had an advantage over his primary rival, who was appointed by Mao before he died, but there was still strong opposition to his policies of economic liberation and openness. One of the objectives of the short, useless Sino-Vietnamese war was to distract the military and the populace while he continued to consolidate power. I am dealing with limited resources here, as I am currently in China, but the Wikipedia page on Deng Xiaoping at least confirms that Deng was undergoing significant troubles in 1979. He had plenty of motivation to stage a war as a distraction. We are currently seeing similar tactics from North Korea. Note that I am not ignoring the fact that China wanted to reduce Vietnam's military capability, I am merely stating that they were foolish for thinking they needed to do so, and also that Deng's self-interest was involved. EvanSchenck posted:Seriously? Throughout the Vietnam War the PAVN had multiple regular divisions hanging out in Laotian territory supervising the Ho Chi Minh trail and fighting the Hmong. Why do you think Nixon bombed the poo poo out of Laos? Now I don't have a history of Laos in front of me, but I googled it for you and something called "Library of Congress country studies" can be found online. Some highlights of North Vietnamese-Laotian relations include a full-scale invasion in 1958-59 in which the Pathet Lao (the Laotian Communists who took power in 1975) acted as auxiliaries to the Vietnamese regulars, repeated references to "North Vietnamese-Pathet Lao forces," the fact that Vietnam only withdrew troops from Laotian territory in 1989 (!), the Pathet Lao was originally a subordinate section of the Viet Minh movement under Ho Chi Minh, and so on. You can skim it if you want. The study implies that Vietnam has a tutelary relationship with Laos rather than a master-satellite thing: Again, I am arguing from a moral perspective. Relative to every other player involved, Vietnam's crimes were laughable. They expanded the Ho Chi Minh trail into Laos because they had to. Any related violence against Laos is actually America's fault, not Vietnam's. Laos was not invaded in the sense that their government was deposed and replaced by puppets, but in the sense that Vietnam wanted to help its fellow revolutionaries. There is a reason that Laos and Vietnam are close friends today, while Cambodia and Vietnam are much less so. It is true that this may have appeared threatening to the paranoid Chinese, but only deep ignorance could have led to the conclusion of "Holy poo poo they're gathering a coalition to attack us!" rather than "They've been at war for more than a century and are taking steps to be left alone." EvanSchenck posted:I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Of course Vietnam intended to do more than merely prevent the Khmer Rouge from raiding the border--they wanted to take it over with a puppet government, and did so for a good ten years. My argument here is that Vietnam did not overstep any sort of moral bounds in its invasion of Cambodia. The effect was the removal of the worst dictator in history (in terms of the percentage of his own people killed) and the implementation of a much better government. Cambodia is massively better off today due to Vietnam's nation-building. This should be compared to America rebuilding Japan after WWII. Of course there was self-interest involved, but it's a little misleading to say that the Vietnamese only wanted to install a "puppet government."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Well, what do you mean by modern? A lot of military planning and tactics were invented as far back as the Napoleonic wars and before that even, and it gets a bit muddy on who exactly invented what first. If you're talking what we in 2011 recognize as a modern army, that being combined armor and infantry using maneuver with close air support, then the Germans really perfected that in WWII. Britain used it first in the last battles of WWI. Troubled Joe fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jan 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:We seem to be arguing from different angles here. I am arguing that Vietnam never did anything to deserve being invaded and that there is little evidence that they would have ever attacked China, even though they had the capability to do so. You are arguing that China was making sound strategic judgments based on nothing more than Vietnam's military strength and its alliance with the U.S.S.R. I didn't discuss this much previously, but there is also the fact that the PRC wants to exercise at least some degree of influence over the states in its geographical neighborhood. Indochina had been a French colony, and then an American sphere of influence, but with American withdrawal it might return to being a Chinese area of concern. Vietnam was too strong for China to dominate, was closely allied with China's main Great Power rival in the USSR, and was strong enough to dominate other nearby states like Laos and Cambodia that would otherwise probably fall under Chinese influence. So in one sense Vietnam in conjunction with the USSR was a potential (though not actual) threat to Chinese military operations and even territorial integrity, and in another sense they were able and willing to block and frustrate Chinese ambitions in their "near abroad." Supporting the Khmer Rouge was a way to keep their hand in the game and sap Vietnamese strength. Invading Vietnam after the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge served further purposes--to send the USSR and Vietnam the message that China would defend its interests with military force when necessary, to test the PLA's performance against a regional rival, and hopefully to cow Vietnam with a military defeat and force them out of Cambodia. In the end the message was sent, but the PLA probably failed the test (requiring massive numerical superiority to defeat Vietnam's B-team), and so Vietnam was not impressed and did not leave Cambodia. The question of whether Vietnam did anything to provoke this comes down to whether or not you think a major power should exercise some control over sovereign states that have the misfortune of being nearby. Most people would say no, and they're probably right, but nevertheless there's a long litany of this kind of meddling in recent history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Troubled Joe posted:Britain used it first in the last battles of WWI. I don't think you can say that any one country used it first in WW1, they were all experimenting with ways to break out of the trenches. As well, Germany was the only country to actually build an aircraft during WW1 that specialized in close air support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I don't want to continue this derail to any regard, but an amazing thing that I read recently (in Niall Fergusons War of the World) was that the US supported the Khmer Rouge (and China) against Vietnam. I mean christ, thats politics at its lowest ebb. The US and China were more or less cooperating on the foreign policy front for most of the 1980s up to 1989, with Tiananmen and the collapse of the USSR. The American documentary Red Dawn makes reference to this. Americans purchased Chinese weapons through Pakistan to supply the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, including (if some books on this are to be believed) supplying captured Russian shoulder launched SAMs and other weapons to the Chinese in order to copy and send back to Afghanistan. American Stingers were later supplied due to the Russian SA-7s being...not very good. The US and China also supported Jonas Savimbi's UNITA against the Warsaw Pact backed MPLA and Cuba (whole units of Cuba regular forces were deployed to Angloa  )in the Angolan civil war. Savimbi himslef was trained in China. In the late 80s there were plans for the US to massively upgrade the Chinese Air Force and Navy with American equipment. For example the Super 7 project, to upgrade Chinese Mig-21 derivatives with American engines and avionics. Unfortunately TAM put a stop to most of those plans. Notable survivors include the American supplied GE LM2500 engines, which power most American non-nuclear surface warships also powering some Chinese warships and the Chinese fleet of S-70 Blackhawks which were flown as recently as the 2008 earthquake.   The Blackhawks were notable for their superior high-altitude performance compared to anything else available to the Chinese and heavily deployed in Tibet. Thanks Uncle Reagan! 
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jan 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:For example the Super 7 project, to upgrade Chinese Mig-21 derivatives with American engines and avionics. It's a bit of a stretch to fully trace the lineage of the current FC-1 back to the Super 7 project, no matter what sinodefence says. A more relevant example might be the 'Peace Pearl' assistance program to produce an updated version of the Chinese J-8 fighter: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j8ii.asp, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8#J-8II.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Keep in mind UNITA was supported by South Africa, the MPLA simply didn't have the equipment or training to compete.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
I have some pictures I'd like to share. These are my opa and oma from Austria. I don't know too many details as my dad doesn't really care to talk about it to much. From what I understand they met around the late 30s. My grandfather was in the Austrian military as an officer(?) He had my father around 1942. Then, well, you know what happened. During the war he went back to visit my father when he was 2 or 3, I think. From what I understand he was shot in Finland by the Russians crossing a river. They don't know if he drowned or was simply shot. Since they couldn't find the body my grandma didn't get any sort of financial support for a long time. Obviously it was a rough time for Austria regardless. She was going farm to farm with her kids begging for pieces of bread.    His death certificate I think  Back Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jan 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Wow that's quite amazing. It's a shame you don't really know what happened, but I guess that's true for the vast majority of relatives of casualties 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Here's a translation from the German threadHamiltonian Bicycle posted:It's not a death certificate. More like some sort of obituary/memorial card. Lists his name, rank, and circumstances of death (without details):  Only other photo I know that is stateside. Nazi or not. One thing they knew for sure was fashion, drat. But I like to think that he was in the Austrian military before the annexation of Germany. So I was told as well. Not like there was any other choice, though. Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jan 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 03:12
|
|