|
Define "widespread". Because I'm sure there's some terrible soviet biplane they made a thousand+ of. Probably more than one.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Is there any articles or books you can link to me for some facts on this? I love for a bit more depth on the subject. I'm looking right now at a pretty informative paper published in 2007 by the US Army Combined Arms Center, "We were caught unprepared: the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War." I wasn't able to access the PDF via their website due to broken links (wtf, USACAC?), but for some reason I was able to get it via google's QuickView function: Google quickview. You can also use his footnotes to direct you to other publications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What was the absolute worst plane to see widespread use in WWII? The Boulton Paul Defiant was put into widespread use by the RAF. It turned out to be pretty useless because the whole idea of a "turret fighter" just didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
The Defiant was the best 1918 fighter in the skies. Various British planes early in the war were pretty awful. The Fairey Battle had a single Merlin engine, just like the Hurricane, but had a crew of 3 and a bomb-load to carry too, which meant it was horrifically slow and unwieldy. On top of that it couldn't even carry much of a bomb load, and Battles were shot down in their dozens in the Battle of France. In fact, I don't think a single Battle which went to France in 1940 returned - survival rates for sorties in May 1940 were along the lines of 1-2 out of 8, and the whole Advance Air Striking Force was destroyed in weeks. The Blenheim bomber wasn't much better; neither were the Hampden bombers. The Short Stirling, a four-engined heavy bomber, wasn't as spectacularly bad as some other planes, but by 1943 - when it was still seeing heavy use - it was just utterly outclassed. I read that the crews of Avro Lancasters used to cheer in briefings when told that they'd be accompanied by Stirlings, since the night fighters and flak would focus on the Stirlings instead due to their lower operational ceiling and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:P-39 Cobra The Soviets got a hell of a lot of mileage out of the Cobra, and even in American service it wasn't completely terrible. While it's difficult to say which plane was the "Worst", it's hard to dispute that one of the least successful American designs had to be the Brewster F2A Buffalo. _1940.jpg) It was the Navy's first monoplane fighter, and the problems with the aircraft were endless. It was slow, it couldn't maneuver, it was underarmed, was difficult to maintain, and several users noticed that firing mechanisms had a tendency to malfunction, leaving it completely defenseless in the air. Against the Zero, there was no contest-it was so completely outmatched, during the Battle of Midway 13 out of the 20 Buffaloes stationed on the island were shot down. It was phased out of service as fast as possible in favor of the F4F Wildcat. Funnily enough, the Finnish Air Force actually got a lot of use of of their Buffaloes, mostly because they were facing even more outdated Soviet Biplanes. Nearly every Buffalo ace came from the Finnish Air Force, and today the only surviving example of a Buffalo is a former FAF fighter that had previously crash-landed in a lake. _K-SIM_02.jpg/800px-Brewster_B-239_(BW-372)_K-SIM_02.jpg) A fitting tribute to the plane many Marine aviators refereed to as "Flying Coffin".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Ironically enough the two most successful Allied planes of the war in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed (the P-39 and the Buffalo) have just been named as "worst aircraft". I think it was the Fairey Battle. No other plane in the war suffered higher losses accomplishing less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Define "widespread". Because I'm sure there's some terrible soviet biplane they made a thousand+ of. Probably more than one. There were over three thousand Polikarpov I-153's built by 1941 (and then some even older models), but I-153 wasn't really a terrible biplane. Quite to the contrary, it was a terrific biplane as were most other biplanes still in use at that point: pretty fast, agile as hell, and you had to try hard to get it to an uncontrollable spin. It was the perfect fighter that Russians needed to win WW1. It's just that biplanes as a class were outdated by WW2, and agility didn't help much when the opponent could zoom past you with 20mm cannons blazing and be beyond the reach of your puny machineguns before you knew what killed you. Still, it was better than nothing and Soviets tried many ways of getting an extra mile out of the 'Chaika', including the addition of rocket engines for rapid acceleration. Finnish Air Force used them for reconnaisance throughout the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Ironically enough the two most successful Allied planes of the war in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed (the P-39 and the Buffalo) have just been named as "worst aircraft". The P-39 I won't dispute, (It worked extremely well in low-level tactical dogfights, exactly what the Soviets needed on the Eastern Front, and went up against contemporary German aircraft.) but the Buffalo was a terrible, terrible plane. The only reason the Finns liked it was because it was going up against Soviet biplanes and the cold weather prevented the engine from overheating. (As it did in every other theater of the war.) There's a reason why every single other Air Force ditched it as soon as physically possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The only reason the Finns liked it was because it was going up against Soviet biplanes and the cold weather prevented the engine from overheating. (As it did in every other theater of the war.) There's a reason why every single other Air Force ditched it as soon as physically possible. Not quite. First of all, the Brewsters didn't make it to the Winter War in time to be used in combat. And in the 1941-1944 Continuation War they worked equally well in summer and winter, and against biplanes, monoplanes and heavy bombers. For more details, here's a list of Finnish Fighter Squadron 24's air victories and combat losses. The first table is Winter War victories with Fokker D.XXI (FR-xxx), the second table Continuation War victories with Brewsters and, after mid-1944 Messerschmitts (BW-xxx and MT-xxx) and the third table losses. In the victory tables, the right most column names the enemy airplane type. Try Google's Translate if you dare (it likes to call Paavo as Spongebob, while a place called Kangasvaara becomes Fabric Danger  ).The last registered I-153 kill is dated May 1943, 1 Chaika and 2 Sturmoviks by Finnish ace Hans Wind over the Finnish Gulf. Hans Wind had 75 kills, 39 of them with Buffalo. But even before 1943 a good chunk of the kills consisted of DB and SB bombers, Yaks, MiGs, LaGGs and lend-lease fighters like Spitfires and Hurricanes. As Squadron 24 got Bf-109's in summer 1944, the Buffalos were handed over to Squadron 26 who claimed 17 Soviet kills and later 2 German Stukas in the Lapland war. The Stuka kills have been questioned, though, as they were never found. (Just don't ask me how reliable the kill scores, especially the identification of the enemy planes, were in general. Evaluating the claims of airmen is a paranormal science that I am not prepared to lose my sanity over.) The simple fact was that, outdated or not, the Brewster did its job when flown by experienced Finnish pilots against more modern Allied aircraft flown by men who had only brief experience combatting againt the force of gravity. And there wasn't anything better on offer, except for the occasional Soviet crashlanded fighter that could be repaired. As such, Finns wanted to buy license rights to it in 1940 and were developing a domestic wood frame copy of the Buffalo as late as 1944, the Humu.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
I happened to read a book by Mark Solonin, called "At the airfields that seemed to be asleep", he describes in great detail how VVS was really like in summer of 1941, dispeling the myth of soviet air force getting caught completely with their pants down. There's also rivalry between plane constructors and who could suck up to Stalin the most. I don't remember all the details, it was a while ago. Several chapters are available for reading (in english) at the bottom of that page: http://www.solonin.org/en/book_airfields
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The P-39 I won't dispute, (It worked extremely well in low-level tactical dogfights, exactly what the Soviets needed on the Eastern Front, and went up against contemporary German aircraft.) but the Buffalo was a terrible, terrible plane. The only reason the Finns liked it was because it was going up against Soviet biplanes and the cold weather prevented the engine from overheating. (As it did in every other theater of the war.) There's a reason why every single other Air Force ditched it as soon as physically possible. This is partially correct. First, as noted in the post above, it really went against the meat of the VVS during the Continuation War, and it beat everything that it came up against (including the Yaks that were starting to beat the Luftwaffe) until well into 1943. Second, remember that the Buffalos that were sent to Finland were very different planes from the ones sent to the RAF and USAAF/USN in Asia. The US required a ton of modifications to the original design (heavier armament, more guns and ammo, different fuel tanks, more armor, bigger landing gear, heavier radios, etc) that the engine/airframe couldn't really handle. The Finns got something close to the original design, which was actually quite a hotrod performance-wise for the time (its rate of climb in particular was stellar). You also have to remember that the fighting on the Eastern Front was well suited to the Buffalo; plenty of low/medium altitude dogfights and relatively few high altitude interception/escort scenarios. The Buffalo was really in its element here, whereas it was being badly misused (mainly as a point interceptor against high altitude bombers) in the far east. Plus, it didn't have to deal with the Zero, which outclassed it and everything else at the time it was pressed into service. bewbies fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
I'll concede that you're obviously more well-read on the topic than I am, and you're probably right. I still maintain that the Buffalo was an absolutely terrible plane, but if anything that just gives more credit to the skill of the Finnish pilots that flew them. Edit: I will also agree with your earlier point that the Battle was even worse in every conceivable fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
I have to say the title goes to the Ohka. It was a Japanese plane designed for kamikaze pilots. It may not qualify as a plane, as it attaches to a Betty for takeoff, then detaches when it is near the target and has rockets to propel it to its' destination. Of course, the bombers that carry it were sitting ducks for Allied forces, especially since the Ohka only had a 20 nautical mile range. The biggest ships they sunk were two destroyers, and 852 were produced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:I have to say the title goes to the Ohka. It was a Japanese plane designed for kamikaze pilots. It may not qualify as a plane, as it attaches to a Betty for takeoff, then detaches when it is near the target and has rockets to propel it to its' destination. Of course, the bombers that carry it were sitting ducks for Allied forces, especially since the Ohka only had a 20 nautical mile range. The biggest ships they sunk were two destroyers, and 852 were produced. And they were so volatile that if a carrier had them on board when they were hit the whole ship would light up like a Christmas tree! It's amazing to see how one sided world war two has. It really was, the Axis did put on a respectable show but the sheer weight of the opposition would never be defeated. I mean you look at the Battle of Britain and it looks so tense and so dire, but even if the British suffered a terrible loss Operation Sealion would still be impossible. Same thing with the Japanese, Pearl Harbour and Midway, even if more sucessfull, would simply delay the inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 06:18
|
|
|
The war against Japan was especially one-sided knowing that the US was fighting with like 80% of its resources devoted to other theaters. It was like the US was fighting Japan with one arm tied behind its back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Mans posted:And they were so volatile that if a carrier had them on board when they were hit the whole ship would light up like a Christmas tree! And almost every single page in this enormous thread, somebody brings up information that essentially adds another coffin nail to the Axis regimes. Everything from equipment design to production to resource procurement to fuel quality to doctrine and so on. And considering how rotten they were (not that the allies didn't have some blood on their hands), they really performed far better than they had any reasonable right to. And they still lost. Hard It's a grisly hobby I'll admit, but it's kinda nice that upon historical review I get to watch the Axis blunder their way to defeat again and again and again, forever and ever. If it wasn't the costliest conflict in the course of human events in lives and material, I'd say they definitely deserved their loss too. Or maybe it's because of this that I enjoy studying up on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
At the onset of the first Gulf War in 1991 people unironically thought Iraq was going to become a new Nazi Germany. They were by far the most advanced and militarily powerful country in the Arab world, after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:I don't have it in me to make a full effort post right now, but if you are into this, you should study up on the 2006 fight between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel came into Southern Lebanon after Hezbollah captured two IDF soldiers in a raid, with top of the line Merkava tanks and well-trained troops, and on the ground Hezbollah spanked them using RPGs, mortars, and especially prepared defenses like mines and bunkers (even bunkers with AC - a big deal in the desert!)... It's a great example of how a relatively low-tech force could beat a high-tech modern force and hold the field at the end of the day. The general gist of your post is right, but only barely. In your excitement to show how badass Hezzbolah is, you made some pretty huge mistakes and assumptions - like referring to South Lebanon as "the desert".  First off, in the security and defense world, we shy away from terms like "invaders" - unless you are working for Al Manar. Second, Hezzbolah didn't "spank" anyone with RPGs. They used the much more advanced Kornet missile. Third, Hezzbolah was not happy to "give up ground" at all. They fought tenaciously to hold territory; the vast majority of Israeli and Hezzbolah casualties took place within 10km of the border. Next up, we have your comment about "not contesting Israel's blockade". Here, ironically, you missed a chance to describe one of Hezzbolah's great successes of the war - hitting Israel's most advanced naval vessel with a Chinese/Iranian Silkworm missile, fired on live TV. Moving on, you describe how the IAF couldn't hit Hezzbolah, so they resorted to "bombing civilians instead". What actually happened was that the IAF doctrine called for punishing strikes against Lebanese civilian infrastructure (retroactively coined the Dehiya Doctrine) in order to pressure the Lebanese government to reign in Hezzbolah, and in an attempt to link responsibility for Hezzbolah's actions to the greater Lebanese state. As a matter of fact, for all of the bad press Israel got for killing civilians, this seems to be one of their only strategic successes in the war, since Nasrallah went on to apologize and claim that he wouldn't have started the war had he known the IAF would pummel Lebanon so viciously. And as for the Hezzbolah, all of their strategic long range missiles were destroyed by the IAF within the first couple hours of the air campaign. The IAFs main failure in the war was in CAS, not strategic bombing. Lastly, you end by describing how a "relatively low-tech force could beat a high-tech modern force and hold the field at the end of the day." It should now be apparent, after reading through my corrections, that Hezzbolah's army is anything but low-tech. Analysts use the term Hybrid warfare when describing the Hezzbolah, which means combining conventional and irregular warfare, terror, and info-ops, which I find is pretty accurate. In the end, you're mostly right, but for the wrong reasons. The Hezzbolah "beat" Israel because the Israeli government and IDF could not adapt to the unique challenges of fighting a well armed, high tech guerrilla army in the limited time frame middle-east wars offer, which is between 3-4 weeks at the maximum. In the interests of disclosure, I'm a security professional here in Israel, and I fought in this war as a low level infantry NCO.  EDIT: I have some great english language sources if anyone is interested in learning more about Hybrid Warfare and the 2006 war. Zionist_en_fuego fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
So what was the reaction in Isreal to what happened in 2006? And how did the targeting of civilian infrastructure sit with the population?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 11:05
|
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:
This sounds to me like they were bombing civilians. EDIT: Like half of your problems with his post are that he didn't couch what he said in pro-Israel terminology, or he didn't explain things very thoroughly, when he said he didn't have time to expand on it anymore. The invaders bit is over the top, you can call them "Freedom Troops" if you want but don't act like Invaders is not an accurate description. Modern Day Hercules fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:EDIT: I have some great english language sources if anyone is interested in learning more about Hybrid Warfare and the 2006 war. Interested in this. Are these accessible online?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 12:04
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Interested in this. Are these accessible online? Yeah, super interested in this, it's amazing how the world has just glanced over this bloody little conflict and how little I've heard about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Define "widespread". Because I'm sure there's some terrible soviet biplane they made a thousand+ of. Probably more than one. One of them was perhaps the 1928 Po-2 cloth and plywood crop duster biplane, which the Soviets made good use of in the war as, well, the precursor of the modern stealth bomber. Being a biplane it had excellent agility, it could be flown only meters from the ground, its cloth and plywood construction meant that bullets and cannon shells often went right through it without doing much damage, and with its maximum speed being lower than the stall speed of any German fighter it was really hard to shoot down. Since it had a good glide ratio, the engines could be shut off on approach to target, so there would be no engine noise to give it away. The Soviets put female pilots on them, and they kinda kicked rear end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
We can't mention the Ohka and forget about the Fi103R now can we! A piloted V-1, that pilots were supposed to bail out of at the last minute (right into the pulse-jet, presumably), although it was in practice a suicide weapon. They even made a "Leonidas Squadron" full of crazy nazis to go along with the plan, but they scrapped it in the end. Eventually they ended up going with the much less crazy Mistel option, which involved a BF-109 or an Fw-190 being attached to a medium bomber, which would then be separated and glide to the target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Neat little story from wikipedia page on the Po-2 during the Korean War:Wikipedia posted:One F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing to 110 mph during an intercept of a Po-2 biplane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
What is the actual number killed in the Holocaust? I keep hearing different numbers being tossed around. All the jewish holocaust sites say 6 Million while alot of Historian websites say between 1 Million to 2 Million and some say no more than 100,000  Is Stalin still at 23 Million?  If his number is that high why aren't there big memorials(and museums) for the crimes he committed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Wikipedia sez that 5.9 million Jews got killed, along with 2-3 million soviet POWs, around 1.8-2 million Polaks, 800k-1.5million gypsies, and smaller numbers of freemasons (80k), the disabled (200-250k), and so forth. Long story short, there were a big loving lot of dead from the Holocaust, even if Stalin managed to win the Genocidal Maniac contest. Anyone who downplays the holocaust to 100k or so may be a Nazi apologist, especially if he's Russian. Big neo-nazi community there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah anyone saying 1 million or less is doing some (not particularly good) nazi apologetics. An exact number is impossible because of destroyed records and ambiguity over what exactly counts as being part of the holocaust (I for example wouldn't count dead Soviet POWS as being part of 'the holocaust', because their deaths weren't really part of the same orchestrated program of killing). Around 8 million, 6 million of which were Jewish and 2 million assorted others is a safe number. Around 20 millions Soviet citizens died. For similar reasons it's impossible to get a precise number, but it's around 10 million armed forces casualties and another 10 million civilian deaths.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Wikipedia sez that 5.9 million Jews got killed, along with 2-3 million soviet POWs, around 1.8-2 million Polaks, 800k-1.5million gypsies, and smaller numbers of freemasons (80k), the disabled (200-250k), and so forth. Alright, well I've dug my head into the holocaust and came across this picture. On the Jewish Virtual Library this is also in the National holocaust museum (I've been there)  http://i.imgur.com/vTJmP.jpg That picture is captioned on these sites to be a German Einzatsgruppen Commando When that is clearly a Russian soldier (I can't really tell the exact year and style uniform) and he is also holding a Mosin Nagant Carbine it seems. No German rifle was that short. This is the first time I've actaully researched the Holocaust and alot of the stuff I'm finding on official websites is not adding up  E: Fixed some markup
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:Alright, well I've dug my head into the holocaust and came across this picture. On the Jewish Virtual Library this is also in the National holocaust museum (I've been there) quote:This is the first time I've actaully researched the Holocaust and alot of the stuff I'm finding on official websites is not adding up quote:alot of the stuff I'm finding on official websites is not adding up 1/10. Too obvious. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
In case anyone who isn't a troll is reading, it was actually fairly common for Axis soldiers to use captured Soviet weapons (especially a couple of AT guns). In quite a few photos from Stalingrad you'll see Germans with PPsH's, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In case anyone who isn't a troll is reading, it was actually fairly common for Axis soldiers to use captured Soviet weapons (especially a couple of AT guns). In quite a few photos from Stalingrad you'll see Germans with PPsH's, for example. That rifle looks more like a 98k than a Mosin anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In case anyone who isn't a troll is reading, it was actually fairly common for Axis soldiers to use captured Soviet weapons (especially a couple of AT guns). In quite a few photos from Stalingrad you'll see Germans with PPsH's, for example. The Germans were exceedingly fond of the 76.2mm ZIS-3 gun, to the point where they developed their own ammunition to use in the ones they captured. Also, the nice thing about captured PPShes and PPSes was they they ran passably on 7.63mm Mauser ammunition the Germans had a bunch of lying around. Also if you look at the upper handguard, it's obviously a Kar98k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Here is a quick rundown: This is from a few pages back, but I have to add another interesting bit to it. After the war, Argentina wanted major territorial gains, if not an outright partitioning of Paraguay. However, President Rutherford B. Hayes, who arbitrated the disputes after the war, sided with Paraguay, and Argentina got much less land than they wanted. In gratitude, the Paraguayan government renamed a department and its capital city after Hayes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:39
|
|
. War lasts 6 years and kills 60% of the Paraguayan population (90% of the men). Paraguay is ultimately literally kicked back to the stone age, and Brasil and Argentina go back to oppressing their own populations.
|
I'm pretty sure I saw a link on this forum to an interesting podcast about ptsd in the old days and so called soldier's heart. But now I can't find it anymore. Do you have any idea what it was? And if you don't, feel free to recommend historical podcasts. I already know about Hardcore history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:If his number is that high why aren't there big memorials(and museums) for the crimes he committed? That doesn't make sense because there totally are memorials all over Russia. It's just that nobody outside Russia gives a gently caress. Here's one that I have been to: http://heninen.net/punakangas/english.htm The Downfall posted:Alright, well I've dug my head into the holocaust and came across this picture. On the Jewish Virtual Library this is also in the National holocaust museum (I've been there)  Is this also 'clearly' a Russian soldier? Would you like to tell us more about forged evidence for the holocaust and also about how Stalin really was the true monster, Mr. Downfall... or should I say Herr Untergang? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:This sounds to me like they were bombing civilians. Yes, bombing civilians. I don't couch anything in pro-israel terms, because i'm not "pro-israel" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't assume that all Americans are Rumsfeld-loving neocons, so don't assume that all Israelis are hasbara spewing likudniks. To clarify my point that you quoted - the IAF planned on bombing civilians from the very beginning of the war. They didn't "resort" to it. In fact, I was somewhat hoping that when discussing strategic concepts and military efficacy, we don't need to couch terms at all - hence my problem with the term "invaders". Let's not sink into a semantics debate here - I was pointing out that it's not the appropriate term when describing two warring parties in a strategic context. Moreso, invaders is the specific term that the hezzbolah propaganda uses when describing Israel. Freedom troops would be an equally stupid designation. How about "attacking force", or "offensive"? Rabhadh posted:So what was the reaction in Isreal to what happened in 2006? And how did the targeting of civilian infrastructure sit with the population? Israelis have more sympathy for Palestinians being tear gassed in the West Bank than they do for Lebanese or Gazan civilians being blown to bits during war. The fear of Gazan or Lebanese rockets is a very primal fear, because there is no easy solution. The actual efficiency of the rockets makes little difference to the Israeli public, which explains why Israel's response to Qassams in 2009 was just as severe as the response to Lebanese Katyushas in 2006. quote:Sources. I uploaded a bunch of good reports. I'd probably start from the Winograd summary if you want to see how Israel views its mistakes. Some of the later materials, especially the 400pg Rand report on airpower in 2006 and 2009 are fantastically researched. I threw in a Lebanese Army officer's report as well, but keep in mind that the LAF played a really small role in the whole war. Sadly, the hezzbolah doesn't really release any of their strategic documents - or at least not to the journals i follow... I'd also strongly recommend Nicholas Blanford's Warriors of God for a Hezzbolah-centric view of the war. EDIT: Thanks R. Mute http://www.putlocker.com/file/E89D4A1218376B45 Zionist_en_fuego fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:In fact, I was somewhat hoping that when discussing strategic concepts and military efficacy, we don't need to couch terms at all - hence my problem with the term "invaders". Let's not sink into a semantics debate here - I was pointing out that it's not the appropriate term when describing two warring parties in a strategic context. Moreso, invaders is the specific term that the hezzbolah propaganda uses when describing Israel. Freedom troops would be an equally stupid designation. How about "attacking force", or "offensive"? And maybe try Putlocker?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I don't think that because we're in the military history thread that we have to start using military weasel words, absurd abbreviations or 'cute' pet names. Israel literally invaded Lebanon, so why tell people not to use the word? Yes, and the US literally invaded German-occupied France. This is such a silly point for all of you to make a stand on. Hezzbolah "literally" started the war by "literally invading" Israel, killing four soldiers and kidnapping two. Then they "literally" saturated Israeli towns and cities with dozens of mortars and rockets before the Israelis even fired a shot. Invaders is a loaded term, "attackers" is not. And thanks for the excellent suggestion on Putlocker. http://www.putlocker.com/file/E89D4A1218376B45
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Zionist_en_fuego posted:Yes, and the US literally invaded German-occupied France. What? I can't think of many people who would have a problem referring to the 'invasion of France in 1944'. That's what happened. That's what the word means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 22:04
|
|
