|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I don't think Hadrian's wall was ever really an effective tactical building, similar to how the Great Wall never really kept anybody out. IIRC from my visit, Hadrian's wall was more about controlling trade. Yeah the history of Rome podcast goes into a bit of detail about this, although it is in reference to the walls and defences along the Rhine, it probably applies to Hadrian's wall as well. They were not meant to stop a determined military force, more keep a check on the day to day movements in and out of the empire. They also serve quite well at stopping small opportunistic banditry\raiding. But it was never meant to stop actual "oh poo poo" armies, at best it might slow them down for an hour or two. The real defence was the threat of Rome, if you gently caress with Rome you get a few weeks or so, maybe even a couple of months or years to enjoy it and then they push your poo poo in. The more you poke or resist the more they get mad and eventually they will win. Their legions are terrifying to the average tribal soldier and while there might only be 100 or so garrisoning this bit you know about, you also know they can send seemingly limitless numbers to stomp you if they get mad. This generally worked for like 200 years, until for whatever reason the Germanic tribes really started to push back against Rome and due to a host of factors Rome couldn't respond (seriously a contender for "worst possible timing" across military history) so the threat was lost. In response though, once things calmed down, the Romans developed the idea of defence in depth. Abandon the walls stick a network of small forts across the border. Leave a small garrison in each one. Behind that have some larger fortified towns with bigger garrisons. Behind that have large standing armies. Now when Germanic Tribe 42 invades they either have to waste lots of time and siege down all these forts, allowing the Romans to form up their big army and stomp you, or push on and allow the garrisons to combine and cut off both your supply and retreat. Also since the towns are fortified, there isn't any low hanging fruit to steal. This worked much better for actual defence against a real threat. (This is rather simplistic an outline of a period covering over 400 years, obviously lots more poo poo was going on and contributed to the defence of the borders, notably Rome's kick rear end ability to divide up the tribes and make them kick the poo poo out of each other rather than unite and turn against Rome. It isn't until they start to band together that things turn really bad) Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Jul 12, 2013 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I'm imagining people 1000 years from now digging up the US-Mexican border and speculating as to what kind of tension could possibly cause such a high level of militarization, only to be told the answer is 'immigrants'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm imagining people 1000 years from now digging up the US-Mexican border and speculating as to what kind of tension could possibly cause such a high level of militarization, only to be told the answer is 'immigrants'. The right combinaion of immigrants, kickbacks, and lucrative construction contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm imagining people 1000 years from now digging up the US-Mexican border and speculating as to what kind of tension could possibly cause such a high level of militarization, only to be told the answer is 'immigrants'. And an economy where having more workers is a "bad thing". Jobs were so scarce that the proletariat fought among themselves for the privilege of working for the bourgeoisie!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
I'm really worried about what people 1000 years from now will make of the world. I have a feeling that there is going to be whole chapters dedicated to westerners on the internet doing nothing worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Almost all paper records seem to disappear around year 2000, presumably due to the decline of civilization as people concentrate on sacrificing their semen at small plastic altars dedicated to forgotten deities such as "Dell", "Apple" or "HP". Most of the surviving literature from that era consists of tomes such as "Windows for Dummies" and the prevalent theory is that people suddenly became too retarded to be able to write any more. edit: Or even worse, all of our internet histories, gathered back in the day by American and Chinese secret services, will be available for genealogists to study. Yes, my 50xgreat-grandson Zeebop Sirius Nenonen will be able to witness in full glory his 50xgreat-grandfather sperging about MLP or whatever inane and/or depraved bullshit. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I'm really worried about what people 1000 years from now will make of the world. Good news! If anyone does find our relics 1000 years from now it'll be aliens who'll look at our ruined cities, go "neat" and leave. With all humanity has done to this planet we'll not being seeing the 22nd century unless poo poo changes drastically soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
I often wonder when the next offensive nuclear detonation will be. I like wargaming possibilities. Pakistan is a rouge nation that everyone is pretending isn't. I really hope the CIA and NSA are on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Pakistan is a rouge nation  Rogue.Personally my money's on Israel. They already have nukes, they're surrounded by numerically-superior and largely hostile countries (with shittier militaries if the Six-Day War is anything to go by, but still), and Western support has been dwindling since the Cold War. If they end up facing such a determined invasion that they haven't got a chance of winning conventionally, they'll use their nuclear weapons. Either that or an American launch against Luxembourg, just for kicks
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
If history is any indication, the next offensive nuclear weapon use will be the result of an accident. Pakistan, you really shouldn't have forgotten to tell India about that satellite launch!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:
They've already won a "hopeless" war against numerically superior opponents. Technology has advanced such that any future war against Israel would look like Desert Storm III. My money is on terrorist attack in an Indian city. After that all bets are off between India and Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm imagining people 1000 years from now digging up the US-Mexican border and speculating as to what kind of tension could possibly cause such a high level of militarization, only to be told the answer is 'immigrants'. All the parts of it I've seen have been a chain-link fence with barbed wire so probably not. Now the DMZ in Korea might be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They've already won a "hopeless" war against numerically superior opponents. Technology has advanced such that any future war against Israel would look like Desert Storm III. My money is on terrorist attack in an Indian city. After that all bets are off between India and Pakistan. If Mumbai didn't set it off, nothing will. Unless of course you meant a stolen warhead or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Pakistan seems to get out of things all the time with: "We are so incompetent we cannot be held accountable"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
What about Chinese force projection in East Asia, and everyone scrambling to either appease China or arm themselves against it. The Americans seem keen to bolster local militaries to prevent a cold-war domino effect situation. Japan is developing a Marine Corps, which breaks countless world war two treaties, Singapore is playing both sides, and everyone else has either an imploded or imploding economy no thanks to either China or Singapore, who own all the resources in the third world in that part of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Good ole Lee family will be proud of their nation. :cryingmerlion:
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Japan seems to be hoping that everyone forgot about WWII. Except for one day where out of the blue the Americans nuked them twice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:What about Chinese force projection in East Asia, and everyone scrambling to either appease China or arm themselves against it. The Americans seem keen to bolster local militaries to prevent a cold-war domino effect situation. Japan is developing a Marine Corps, which breaks countless world war two treaties, Singapore is playing both sides, and everyone else has either an imploded or imploding economy no thanks to either China or Singapore, who own all the resources in the third world in that part of the world. China's leaders are old guys who have spent their entire life in the bureaucracy and have learnt not to rock the boat, that those guys would start a war is out of the question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Good ole Lee family will be proud of their nation. :cryingmerlion: Singapore provides naval bases for American fleets in the pacific while also being a transit point for Australian uranium going to China and North Korea. It's just good business for them I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:What about Chinese force projection in East Asia, and everyone scrambling to either appease China or arm themselves against it. The Americans seem keen to bolster local militaries to prevent a cold-war domino effect situation. Japan is developing a Marine Corps, which breaks countless world war two treaties, Singapore is playing both sides, and everyone else has either an imploded or imploding economy no thanks to either China or Singapore, who own all the resources in the third world in that part of the world.  In a naval war China have to pass Japan, Korea, the Philippines and the entire of mainland Southeast Asia before they reach Singapore. The Strait of Malacca isn't that crucial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Why is Singapore such a big part of this hypothetical war The Strait of Malacca is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Why wouldn't it be an exceedingly crucial objective in any war in or involving Southeast Asia?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Singapore also has a huge army and F15s. They could probably run roughshod over half of SE Asia if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
brozozo posted:The Strait of Malacca is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Why wouldn't it be an exceedingly crucial objective in any war in or involving Southeast Asia?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:What about Chinese force projection in East Asia, and everyone scrambling to either appease China or arm themselves against it. The Americans seem keen to bolster local militaries to prevent a cold-war domino effect situation. Japan is developing a Marine Corps, which breaks countless world war two treaties, Singapore is playing both sides, and everyone else has either an imploded or imploding economy no thanks to either China or Singapore, who own all the resources in the third world in that part of the world. Not really. Article 9 of the Japanese post-war Constitution (which was effectively written by the US) has been interpreted as preventing Japan from possessing offensive capability. It doesn't mean they can't creatively get around the rule by building "helicopter destroyers" that are effectively small aircraft carriers. There's also no treaty obligations that prevent Japan from revising the Constitution to scrap Article 9. Now, Japan is unlikely to do this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't (and haven't already) bent the rules creatively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
At what point do we step in and say "we've sunk enough japanese aircraft carriers in the last 100 years, lets get this one in the bud"?
Baloogan fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Jul 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
And the naming of the 'Self Defence Force,' which I suppose was named such because Israel and South Africa's defence forces were anything but.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:At what point do we step in and say "we've sunk enough japanese aircraft carriers in the last 100 years, lets get this one in the bud"? The Japanese are pretty much Americanized from their post-war recovery and their reliance on America for the last half a century. The new Japanese Marine Corps are training in California, and the USA are supporting their development in the hopes that they can control China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:and the USA are supporting their development in the hopes that they can control China. What in the holy hell are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What in the holy hell are you talking about? Contain, or perhaps control the growth of? I think that's what he's getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:The Japanese are pretty much Americanized from their post-war recovery and their reliance on America for the last half a century. The new Japanese Marine Corps are training in California, and the USA are supporting their development in the hopes that they can control China. It should also be noted that the Japanese Marine Corps is about a battalion in size and will have amphibious assault capabilities for about a platoon. You won't go and invade anyone with that. It is centered, not entirely unreasonably, around the assumption that an island nation might be forced to conduct an opposed landing within its own territory. You can't put a platoon of soldiers on every single tiny rock in the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I wish we had China as a close ally instead of Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I wish we had China as a close ally instead of Japan. We have a China, the RoC isn't good enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
OG China 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:We have a China, the RoC isn't good enough for you? No it isn't. We got the lovely china 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Checked "Barbarossa Derailed" out of the library: what does "deep operations" mean, and how do you reconnoiter in a world without cavalry? The text mentions aerial reconnaissance frequently, but are there any other approaches?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Good god, I shudder at the thought of USA and PRC being close allies. At least PLA would have the manpower to have patrols posted in every street corner in Baghdad and garrisons in every Afghan village, but yeah no, I prefer it when leading imperialist powers remain somewhat uncooperative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:No it isn't. We got the lovely china Yea I'm mad we got the industrious non totalitarian China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:"deep operations" mean, and how do you reconnoiter in a world without cavalry? The text mentions aerial reconnaissance frequently Deep operations was soviet battle doctrine where all force was brought to bear on a wide front allowing for a decisive breakthrough into rear strategic areas allowing for the encirclement of enemy forces. Reconnaissance was accomplished through infiltration tactics though the most successful and easiest method was by plane as you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:At what point do we step in and say "we've sunk enough japanese aircraft carriers in the last 100 years, lets get this one in the bud"? Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
It was said that at Jutland, Jellicoe "...was the only man on either side who could have lost the war in an afternoon.". I hope this isn't too alt history for this thread but if the Royal Navy's forces at Jutland HAD been heavily damaged to near completely destroyed, what would've been the consequences for WW1? Would it have given the Germans enough to turn the tide or is more of a matter of more lives lost and the war just dragging on longer? I can imagine Britain would've never have forgiven Juellicoe if he had failed on such a large scale (People were upset about how it turned out historically) and I can't imagine it would've done British navel pride any favours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 02:13
|
|