|
Comstar posted:Why didn't the Japanese repeat their earlier strategy of defending on the beaches and instead change to a defence in depth? They switched defensive strategies right around the time of the invasion of Peleliu, after the Gilberts, Marianas and Marshalls campaigns. I think they made the switch to defense-in-depth because they believed that they could inflict more casualties to the Allies that way, so that they could win a war of attrition. Apparently another part of the new strategy was to shy away from banzai charges, as these were regarded as wasteful and inefficient, which isn't conducive to winning attritionally. Having said that, I couldn't imagine why they would think that changing the war from ... whatever it was to a war of attrition was a good thing, considering that they were always going to lose in game of pure numbers.
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Well Military Juntas are hardly the most right minded people.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Why didn't the Japanese repeat their earlier strategy of defending on the beaches and instead change to a defence in depth? To expand on what gradenko said, the advantage of a defense-in-depth is that it allowed the Japanese to inflict far more casualties than the previous strategy of focusing on the beaches, and greatly increased the time, men, and material spent clearing each island. Take the battle of Iwo Jima, for example. drat near the entire island was built up, and it took the US over a month and 25,000 casualties to take it. The Japanese knew that there was no way they could ever win these battles, but they hoped that they could make them bloody enough for the Americans so that they might be able to reach a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately for them, as they had throughout the entire war, they underestimated the lengths the Americans would go to for ultimate victory.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:I don't think this is a valid statement. There are several places where the Germans could have significantly changed the outcome of the war. The most obvious is the invasion of the Soviet Union - if they'd held their end of the bargain, they would have had a fair shot at permanently solidifying their gains in Europe. The odds of them taking England would have been slim to none, but hey, most of the continent isn't a bad haul. quote:Question to the OP and other MAs of History in the thread - I'm an undergrad in History at a university that is generally well regarded for its History program in its region. That said, I am profoundly disappointed in the quality of my education. How much does a Master's program differ from a bachelor's? It's more expensive and you'll have less classes and more works. If you find topics you really like and meet teachers that like you and the topic then it'll be a breeze. Teachers tend to treat MA students much better than bachelor scrubs, mostly because it means you've been through grind and you're usually an adult. It won't be amazing, but it's not the end of the world and you might actually get some positive out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:e: ^^^ It isn't well known, but US servicemen were not well paid until the 1960s. As a share of per capita GDP it was about the same amount back in the mid 40ies as now though  quote:Question to the OP and other MAs of History in the thread - I'm an undergrad in History at a university that is generally well regarded for its History program in its region. That said, I am profoundly disappointed in the quality of my education. How much does a Master's program differ from a bachelor's? Western European perspective: no more lectures, way smaller classes (like 2 teachers per class of 12 and in my case even 4-6 students), more in-depth use of certain methods and instruments, a focus on 'cutting edge' published works in your field and a more iterative approach to producing work. e: this is in the socioeconomic field mind you.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Koesj posted:As a share of per capita GDP it was about the same amount back in the mid 40ies as now though Share of per capita GDP over half a century is not a perfect measure - income equality can change over time, for better or worse. Comparison of purchase power is a better measure, though to be complete that too should include a comparison of job perks like possible free meals, accommodation or healthcare.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Also that was what they earned in the US. During WWII most of them would be getting a bonus for serving overseas and I believe another bonus if they were actually in combat.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Share of per capita GDP over half a century is not a perfect measure - income equality can change over time, for better or worse. Comparison of purchase power is a better measure, though to be complete that too should include a comparison of job perks like possible free meals, accommodation or healthcare. Sure, it's a very direct way of comparing the job's societal worth though. OctaviusBeaver posted:Also that was what they earned in the US. During WWII most of them would be getting a bonus for serving overseas and I believe another bonus if they were actually in combat. Yeah, as for nowadays, it's the same.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Were German soldiers being paid in 1945?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Mans posted:Were German soldiers being paid in 1945? Yes, but the currency was becoming worthless as you couldn't buy anything - and then the government backing it fell.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Is there any real reason to think that the US would have sued for peace if the Japanese had of achieved the mythical "Decisive Battle" over the US Navy early in the pacific war as the IJN commanders planned? After Midway, the Japanese didn't just stop fighting. They sunk the Hornet, for example, at Santa Cruz in a carrier action. The US carrier force did not come out of 1942 that well, and eventually major fleet actions were shelved for most of a 1943 before the US returned with a large 'death star' of carriers that could just sit off islands and demolish them with hugely focused airpower. When the Japanese came out to fight that focused fleet, they were slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Take the battle of Iwo Jima, for example. drat near the entire island was built up, and it took the US over a month and 25,000 casualties to take it. The Japanese knew that there was no way they could ever win these battles, but they hoped that they could make them bloody enough for the Americans so that they might be able to reach a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately for them, as they had throughout the entire war, they underestimated the lengths the Americans would go to for ultimate victory. Is there any truth to "Flags of Our Fathers" depicting the US desperate for war bond sales to continue the war or face bankruptcy? Also this might not be the most appropriate thread, but since it was just discussed I have a question about current nuclear arsenals. My SUPER right-wing uncle says Obama is going to get rid of all but like a couple hundred nukes very soon. I know there was a new arms reduction deal negotiated but it didn't sound that extreme. Is he just listening to too much talk radio?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Even if he did, a couple hundred nukes is still a viable enough deterrent. Whats the point between 600 nukes and 6,000 nukes?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Currently Russia and the USA have some 2500 warheads deployed each. START 2010 limits the number to 1550. It also curbs warhead vehicles and launchers, but it's hardly a revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Even if he did, a couple hundred nukes is still a viable enough deterrent. Whats the point between 600 nukes and 6,000 nukes? Redundancy. You want to make sure to hit the hardened emplacements with enough nukes, while still hitting enough targets to make a difference, while actually sending something into the air.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Another issue is that Cold-War era stockpiles are nearing the end of their useful life. In order to maintain their arsenals, nuclear weapons states will have to build new warheads to replace those going out of service due to age. This is a tricky political issue, as it is certainly against the spirit of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and Russia probably can't afford it anyway. Plus, in order for any new design to be considered reliable enough it will probably need to be tested, which hasn't been done by the large nuclear powers in two decades.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Even if he did, a couple hundred nukes is still a viable enough deterrent. Whats the point between 600 nukes and 6,000 nukes? Because if you get hit first by a short range strike and your 600 nukes turn into 15 nukes then suddenly a nuclear war becomes 'winnable'. The key words with nuclear policy are 'second strike'. If you don't have a second strike capacity then that means you are committed to firing first in any situation where the use of nuclear arms looks remotely likely, which is a ridiculously aggressive and stupid posture. NB. This only really applies to major states who believe they are facing each other in an existential struggle.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
I wonder what the US/ROK war plan is if North Korea were to end up striking the south. Probably just trying to decimate their airforce and interdicting supplies would be the most effective.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I wonder what the US/ROK war plan is if North Korea were to end up striking the south. Probably just trying to decimate their airforce and interdicting supplies would be the most effective. They'd probably focus on holding Seoul (a fairly short distance from the DMZ, all things considered) and keeping the North Koreans as far from the capital as possible to ensure minimal damage to the city and its large civilian population. Otherwise, I forsee a lot of bombing and long range artillery decimating advancing NK columns along with the destruction of what little infrastructure exists in North Korea.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
North Korean economy is dependent on labour provided by the military. As in, without conscripts tending crops and distributing goods, the country would starve to death. NK is in no shape to deploy any sizeable force outside its borders and can't risk having any of its already stretched infrastructure threatened by war.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I wonder what the US/ROK war plan is if North Korea were to end up striking the south. Probably just trying to decimate their airforce and interdicting supplies would be the most effective. The North Korean military is strong on paper but lacks real combat power. Although the military monopolizes what little resources the DPRK has, it's a desperately poor country with very few friends internationally. All indications are that they are technically backward in the main, and most of their TO&E is made up of low quality formations suitable only for internal security (similar to the PLA in this respect). To give you an idea of what you're looking at, DPRK military spending is not known precisely but is estimated at somewhere between 5 and 10 billion dollars, or about 25% of GDP. South Korea spends closer to $27 billion, or just under 3% of GDP. The DPRK has a much larger military on both active and reserve duty but spends dramatically less. They are also locked out of trade with most of the world. The implications for the sophistication and readiness of their military, compared to the ROKA, are pretty clear. That said, the DMZ is heavily fortified and the DPRK is known to have a lot of hardened artillery positions within range of Seoul and environs--the financial, political, economic, and demographic heart of South Korea. The damage to civilian infrastructure would surely be considerable, and the flow of refugees away from the combat zone would be incredibly disruptive, but realistically the North Koreans don't have very many formations of sufficient quality to actually trade blows with the ROKA. An attack across the DMZ would be disastrous. As an example, KPA armored spearheads consist of T-62s backed up by T-55s/Type 59s. Probably would have been intimidating in 1965, but ROKA will be countering with K1 and K1A1 tanks, which are the South Korean development of the M1 Abrams. Not an encouraging prospect. If they remain in their fortified areas they could make it costly for the South Koreans to break through, but standing on the defensive doesn't win a war, and the ROKA would still be able to dig them out by steady, careful action. Meanwhile, South Korean and US air forces will pretty easily take control of DPRK airspace and lock down the whole country. The backbone of their air force is Mig-21s, which just isn't going to stand up to what the USN, USAF, and ROKAF will be sending their way. Most likely they'll keep their planes grounded, rather than throw them away with no hope of success. Their main defense is their aerial defense network, but due to their isolation they don't have access to the kind of modern SAM systems needed to defeat an offensive by a top-of-the-line air force. US forces would mostly likely knock it out quickly, leaving the country defenseless. Another problem with standing on the defensive is the simple fact that the DPRK is a ramshackle, dysfunctional country, and war will put them under fresh stress while cutting them off from the foreign aid that they depend on for survival. They probably won't be able to carry on for very long before they suffer some kind of serious collapse. The North Korean military is supposed to have substantial stockpiles of food and other supplies for this eventuality, but everybody else would begin to suffer terribly pretty quickly, and their ammunition wouldn't last forever with their factories and lines of communication bombed to pieces. The real issues are what the DPRK might do with its nuclear weapons, and what would be done with the country after it's defeated. They have functional SRBMs and MRBMs that might deliver a nuclear warhead to targets in South Korea, Japan, or even China. Would they be desperate enough to go for it? And following their victory, South Korea would be facing the prospect of accepting responsible for a ridiculously poor failed state populated by starving people who have been isolated from the world and fed totally insane propaganda for nearly 70 years. That prospect is daunting in the extreme.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:And following their victory, South Korea would be facing the prospect of accepting responsible for a ridiculously poor failed state populated by starving people who have been isolated from the world and fed totally insane propaganda for nearly 70 years. That prospect is daunting in the extreme. This s the main reason why there isn't going to be a war, in my opinion. Based on what I heard from people with humanitarian experience from the DPRK, all other powers in the region are absolutely terrified of what would happen if the dictatorship collapsed. Even now, when there is some degree of control, neighbouring countries (especially China) face serious trouble containing diseases, human and drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. Now, imagine the army falling apart, flooding the region with military-grade weapons, refugees, tuberculosis and God knows what. So the developed world sends the Kims enough aid to keep their regime afloat and they are content enough not to bother other countries too much.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
And that's not counting the risk of Juche loyalists starting an insurgency. The populace has been held hostage for decades, so a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome seems believable.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Dear god, they've already won, why would North Korea ever go to war?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Can any of the 'first world' nations get away with testing a new nuke design without causing a massive diplomatic incident. Would they care? As in gently caress you im doing it anyway what are you going to do about it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Can someone summarize Scotland's role in the English Civil War/War of the Three Kingdoms? I know that the Scottish and English thrones were in a peronal union at the time and some Scots fought for the royalists, but at some point Cromwell's Puritans and Scotland's Presbyterians fought each other which is confusing as I thought (might be wrong here) that religiously they both draw from Calvinism. I tried reading Wikipedia's page on it but it's a baffling situation with Presbyterian, Catholic, Irish, and Highlander factions battling each other.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:And that's not counting the risk of Juche loyalists starting an insurgency. The populace has been held hostage for decades, so a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome seems believable. It's been a couple years since I read it, but I remember this from "The Hidden People of North Korea" pretty well. Any road up, interviews with defectors who escaped to China or South Korea have indicated that the information environment is totally stifling. Most defectors are hooked up with South Korean missionary organizations that allegedly coach them on what to say to journalists, but this aspect is pretty well attested. People are obviously aware that their lives suck and they are helpless in the grip of an autocratic state, but most North Koreans have little idea about what's going on even as far as the next village, let alone foreign countries. All their awareness of current events is filtered through a propaganda machine that is pretty much insane. The book made specific reference to a Rodong Sinmun (the official party organ) article that literally claimed Kim Jong-Il had teleportation powers. As in he would disappear from one place in a flash of light and moments later appear in another a great distance away, confounding the efforts of American satellites to track his position. So even though they might not trust everything the state tells them, they have no way of accessing better information, so they still end up believing some of it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Can any of the 'first world' nations get away with testing a new nuke design without causing a massive diplomatic incident. Would they care? As in gently caress you im doing it anyway what are you going to do about it. France could probably get away with it, because 1) They're not next door to another, antagonistic nuclear power (India, Pakistan) 2) They're not an entrenched part of a cold war power block (US, UK, Russia, China) 3) They're French, they give no fucks. We're gonna blow up this tropical island. Not the desert, not a piece of tundra. We're gonna blow up this beautiful paradise island. Why? Because we're French, that's why. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Even if he did, a couple hundred nukes is still a viable enough deterrent. Whats the point between 600 nukes and 6,000 nukes? I learned this from a Tom Clancy book, so forgive me if I'm horribly wrong, but it's not just about the number of warheads, but also the specific lay-out across the various delivery systems. A simple way to look at it would be how a boomer is (in various ways) a lot harder to destroy than a land-based silo, and that if you can get the drop on someone as in a missiles-in-Cuba or Typhoon-off-the-Eastern-Seaboard scenario, then the feasibility of an acceptable nuclear exchange can change dramatically.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
Contingency Plan posted:Can someone summarize Scotland's role in the English Civil War/War of the Three Kingdoms? I know that the Scottish and English thrones were in a peronal union at the time and some Scots fought for the royalists, but at some point Cromwell's Puritans and Scotland's Presbyterians fought each other which is confusing as I thought (might be wrong here) that religiously they both draw from Calvinism. I tried reading Wikipedia's page on it but it's a baffling situation with Presbyterian, Catholic, Irish, and Highlander factions battling each other. The Church of Scotland, and the Scottish Lowlands "establishment", was Presbyterian, though James VI/I had managed to reintroduce bishops. The Highlands were more of a mixture, a lot more Catholic. Charles I tried to force the usage of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which sparked a revolt of the Covenanters, whose goal was to remove the episcopacy in Scotland. These were the Bishops' Wars. To fund his actions Charles I called a Parliament in England, which was the Long Parliament whose actions of it sparked the English Civil War. During the 1st English Civil War the Scottish Covenanters made an alliance with the English Parliament called the Solemn League and Covenant, with an agreement that Presbyterianism would be put in place in England (many in Parliament were Presbyterian anyway). The Highland clans acted like Highland clans and picked a side (Campbells went Covenanter so MacDonalds went Royalist, though thats a bit of a simplification). There was an expedition of Irish royalists into Scotland during this time. The Covenanter army in England captured Charles I. After this Presbyterianism wasn't implemented in England, partially because of the influence of the Independents in the New Model Army (like Cromwell and the Puritans) and there were fears the English would send their armies north to control Scotland, so a faction of the Covenanters allied with Charles and sent an army south to free him. This failed, and sparked a civil war within the Covenanters. After Charles I was beheaded, the Covenanters (now dominated by a more radical faction) signed a treaty (see also) with Charles II and were promptly crushed by the New Model Army. Scotland was then practically annexed. Soviet Space Dog fucked around with this message at 11:37 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
People consistently underestimate the sheer mass North Korea would bring to bear in an invasion. U.S. and ROK ground forces would be speedbumps until a much larger force could get there. In terms of vehicles, North Korea can't hope to go blow for blow with our tanks, jets, and ships. But there would be a million men scrambling over the border. 2ID is 17,000 on a good day. You could expect poorly organized human wave attacks. We'd cut them down, but after a certain point numbers overwhelm. U.S. generals have held for decades that there isn't all that much they could do to prevent the fall of Seoul.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:People consistently underestimate the sheer mass North Korea would bring to bear in an invasion. U.S. and ROK ground forces would be speedbumps until a much larger force could get there. Yes, the 2ID might only have 17,000 troops but you are forgetting that ROK forces also have over half a million troops in arms. Troops that are better fed, equipped and in the defensive. You don't do much with million men if half of them are too feeble to fight effectively and other half is bogged down tens of miles behind the front lines because the US/ROK air force is decimating everything that moves on the roads.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure all projections of a renewed Korean war have Seoul falling in the first few days. They also wouldn't need to use Human Wave tactics. The mass of artillery they have at the border is enough to smash holes in RoK/US positions alone.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
Not to mention, how loyal would the average North Korean soldier be to 'the cause' after his Officer and half his unit have been blown to bits? Either way it'd be a horrible horrible waste of life on all sides and I hope it doesn't happen. Alchenar posted:I'm pretty sure all projections of a renewed Korean war have Seoul falling in the first few days. Speaking of the North Korean artillery valley of death, has anyone got any idea how modern/well maintained the stuff is?
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:
They have thousands of tubes and Seoul is a pretty big target. Everyone agrees that no matter what, that city wouldn't survive any war.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They have thousands of tubes and Seoul is a pretty big target. Everyone agrees that no matter what, that city wouldn't survive any war. Then again, part of their arsenal is this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:23
|
|
Alchenar posted:They have thousands of tubes and Seoul is a pretty big target. Everyone agrees that no matter what, that city wouldn't survive any war. If that is the case, have the South Korean government at least stopped expanding the city and encouraging people to settle in the other Southern cities? If not that is insane.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
That makes me wonder, at the end of the Korean War, did the South consider changing their capital to a city that is more defensible, such as Busan? While I am sure everyone important has an evacuation plan in the event of war, relocating the entire government would be a massive undertaking in a wartime environment.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
I don't understand how mass human wave attacks beat overwhelming air power. Their wouldn't be a single DPRK plane in the sky after the first hour and the area north of Seoul is so mountainous. There is a tremendous defensive advantage. If anyone is interested here are some pics I took of ROK fortifications on Bonghwa mountain in Seoul. As you can see, they are a little dusty and clearly havent been used in several years. But I do know there are tunnels dug into the mountain with poorly hidden trapdoors and that connect the pillboxes to other parts of the mountain. I don't have a pic because an old dude (understandably) raged on me for trying to take pics of them. I'm not sure about the status of these fortifications because I have been to other mountains in Seoul that are a lot more strict -Requiring me to surrender my passport, no photography etc.      This is the kind of terrain the emaciated DPRK soldiers will have to cross with no air support. Not to mention how fast the advance would stop as soon as they reached the suburbs and started eating/looting. The capital is currently being moved to a new planned city, called Sejong City. e: And actually only a small part of the city is within range of the ancient, poorly maintained DPRK artillery. The suburbs and northwest yes, but definitely everything south of the Han is unreachable. ROK Drop is a pretty good USFK milblog and they are convinced the DPRK don't even have the oil to properly maintain their guns and that a good portion of them will explode and kill their crew the first time they are actually used. THE LUMMOX fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Well it is good to know if the balloon went up, half the city isn't going to burn and the casulties won't be horrible for the innocents. Props to the South Korean government for working on the issue.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 15:35
|
|