|
This is an awesome thread.  Do you think if the Allies had pressed their advantage in the Battles of Narvik and destroyed the German troops in Northern Norway, instead of pulling back in order to lose in France, would it have made any difference in the larger picture of WW2?
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
How real is the image of long lines of infantry walking very slowly towards machine guns in WW1? How long did it take the combatants to realize that such frontal assaults were unproductive? (assuming it actually happened, that is)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Perhaps a bit peripheral, but I also read somewhere that the British had inferior armor-piercing shells. They exploded on the outside of the armor belt, while their German counterparts actually pierced British armour.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
I think that knocking out the Ottoman Empire wasnt the point of the Gallipolli campaign, rather, it was to ensure a steady flow of supplies to Russia through their far more developed Black Sea ports, rather than going the Northern Route.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Why? What was so damned important about Norway? It seems to me that it would have made more sense to redeploy them almost anywhere else. It would have made sense, which is why SOE made several raids into Norway intended to convince Hitler an invasion was imminent. A part of Operation Fortitude (the deception plan for D-Day) called Fortitude North was aimed to keep those troops there instead of moving them them into France or Russia, where they might actually serve a purpose. Around the Battle of the Bulge, the Norwegian resistance blew up more than a thousand rail links in one night to hamper troop movements to the continent. Norway was evidentially envisioned as some sort of final stronghold for the nazi leaders, but that thankfully never came to fruition. I'm pretty interested in Norwegian WW2 history if you have any more questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortitude_North#Fortitude_North http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Claymore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Archery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festung_Norwegen
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
I don't know the physics of it, but I imagine the shell has so much energy it punches straight through without spalling. IIRC something similar happened in the Pacific theater, where Shermans shot right through inferior japanese tanks without doing much damage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:The french treated their soldiers like poo poo (and they spent waaay more than a month at a time in the trenches), so its actually a wonder that they didn't mutiny sooner. I thought the rank was Germany > Britain > France, as Germany was perfectly content to wage the war on French soil and fight defensively, and therefore made quite confortable (under the circumstances) trenches, while French ones were atrocious, seeing as they would lose NO TIME in kicking the krauts off the sacred French soil?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2011 13:07
|
|
|
I'm not saying it wouldn't be catastrophic, but at that point, the Allies had nukes and the Soviets did not. And IIRC, the Soviet Union were still dependent on American grain shipments and high-grade avation fuel. The abrupt cancellation of Lead-Lease shipment in August was not well received in Moscow. Not to mention they were at their peak mobilization ability, while America still had ample manpower reserves. So while it's a stupid idea, its not as if the Soviets would be in a spectacular position.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
A big hole in the sides of the magazines of the Chauchat machine gun, and then using them in the somewhat muddy and untidy trenches of WW1. Also, designing the Chauchat machine gun to use magazines instead of belts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Trenches have been around since the middle ages (you dont really need to "develop" holes in the ground), but they make it hard to advance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Another important part of the bombing campaign was tying up resources that could have been used at the front. A million men (then women, then children) operating AA batteries, which sucked up artillery and ammunition. I believe someone in Army high command wanted to dismantle the AA batteries and send them to the East to stem the advancing Russians (the 88 could be used as a decent anti-tank gun), but leaving the cities defenseless would have damaged civilian morale.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
In the last parts of the European offensive, American GIs were puzzled as to why German shells suddenly had such a high failure rate: after a barrage, artillery grenades would sit embedded in the ground, unexploded. Turns out, the forced laborers at ammunition plants had figured out a way to sabotage the explosives. So it is doubtful if more forced labor would have helped all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Nazi Germany in general and Hitler in particular encouraged agencies to compete with each other for responsibilities and capacities. The Third Reich was a hornets nest of overlapping and competing departments and agencies. For instance, by the end of the war the SS had set up their own industrial empire. It was very far from a well-oiled Teutonic war machine: corruption and nepotism were rife, and it was hard to do anything. The efficiency gains of Albert Speer was as much as in cutting through red tape and rationalizing structures as anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
In addition to cost, logistics was nowhere near capable of transporting enough ammunition for each soldier to shoot a round every other second.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How much blood did the Wehrmacht have on it's hands? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht Standard Wikipedia disclaimer, use it as a quick overview and a basis for further reading.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Basically, the beginning of British Commando and guerilla tactics and training that would birth the SAS, SBS and SOE.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
I'm way out of my depth here, but wasn't French trench doctrine (as in the physical construction of them) rather terrible? Poor quality with little shelter for the soldiers? I read that Germany built excellent trenches, as they were on French soil and were content to fight there, while the French, anticipating a quick and successful counterattack, built to a far simpler standard?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:I have another question! I'm fairly certain that on WW2 planes at least, the turret (gun ring?) was constructed as to make it impossible to hit your own plane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The most opulent uniforms were worn by men who would never come anywhere close to seeing the enemy eye to eye - admirals and generals. The bombastic looks weren't just to intimidate your enemy in combat, but more importantly it was to emphasize your power to your peers, henchmen, civilians etc. Note his tiny left arm  In all pictures of him (official ones anyway), he holds a sword or hides his left arm somehow.Also, he had his own, patented mustache wax.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:A counterpoint would be that the technological innovation that happens in the military has civilian benefits as well. The first computers were built to do calculations for the military, and the early Internet was developed and funded by the United States Department of Defense. These innovations require a lot of resources to develop, and there may not be enough short term profit in it for private industry to invest in them. That is a fallacy: the resources could be mobilized by the government without the staggering waste intrisic to war. War may be a very powerful motivation for directing resources, but its an incredibly inefficient way of allocating them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Lester B. Pearson posted:Tywin is Joffrey's grandfather, not his father. His only one, to boot 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Besides April 11th 1954?quote:Hitler was notoriously erratic and we often cut speeches short and changed his schedule at the last minute. Holy poo poo, someone call the NKVD. Martin Bormann survived the Battle of Berlin and has become a goon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How bad is the blast effect on the lower turret on a superfiring turret layout? I get a good idea of the blast effect of a 16" gun, but is it superficial or does it affect performance in the lower turret? Neglible. The US went with superfiring from their first dreadnoughts, with no ill effects.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
If anyone doesn't know, there is a History Book thread. Seconding Dreadnought and Castles of Steel. Very tense writing when the Royal and Imperial navies just miss eachother. I love books that doesn't hold back when it comes to criticizing authority, and the Royal Navy made some interesting staffing decisions. The intelligence chief detested and mistrusted his cryptographers for instance, and failed to pass on essential information during the Battle of Jutland. Also, gently caress Beatty and his glory-seeking showboating 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
IIRC, it was only France who really wanted the German ships: the British had just as capable ships, and in any case adapting German technology (parts, drydocks etc) would have been a massive headache. Additionally, the British knew they were in for a major downsizing after the war. France on the other hand didn't have much of a navy at this point, but Britain didn't want to hand them ships that could be used against the RN in the future. Both the American and British diplomats were relieved when they were sunk, as it neatly solved a dispute between the allies. meatbag fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 20:39
|
|