Ask me about Military History!

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Burning Beard posted:

If the fine Admiral has no problem; let me answer this. The Falklands (Malvinas to most of South America) have been under dispute ever since Argentina gained independence. They claim that a Spanish discovery of the Islands given them a legitimate claim; the British had forced the Spanish off and taken claim, then settled it. This is a pretty big national issue for Argentina; national pride if you will. In the '70s Argentina was undergoing major economic problems, so was the UK. There was a "wink, wink, nod nod" deal between the British Government and the Argentinians that if Argentina went in, nothing would be done to prevent or stop them. And what better way by the Colonels to distract from the economic crisis?

The British had been undergoing a major defence drawdown anyhow, they were going to take the Ark Royal out of service, as well as the South Atlantic patrol vessel, the Endurance. So, it was in the best interests of the budget to let the Argies have the drat islands. But, like many plans, once the Argies invaded

The invasion prompted something though in the Thatcher government, they could not let this go. So, Maggie gathered the forces together, recommissioned the Ark Royal and sent a large, well equipped force to get the Falklands back and defend British honor. There's an excellent book by the Captain of the Endurance about the war, with him trying his best to do what he could with 3 .50 caliber HMGs, two helicopters and determination to fight.

The war has less to do with evil dictators and more to do with national pride. Also, the Falklands are a base for oil and gas exploration and continue to become more valuable. The Argentines still have a claim on them.

While it has a lot to do with national pride, to the British people it's is an issue of defending its people living on those islands. The islands were taken by the British over 200 years ago and the people living on them are British citizens, the war was about defending the right of the people on those islands to continue living on them.
As well, Maggie Thatcher was craaazy.

# ¿ May 9, 2010 11:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:24

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

olylifter posted:

Along the same line, I just discovered a BBC/CBC/ABC documentary series from 1964 about the Great War called, appropriately enough, "The Great War".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHm7fNDDY9Y

Super detailed and long (28 episodes, each one about 30 minutes).

The most interesting part thus far is the interviews with the veterans of the war: because of when it was filmed, they're all in their 50s and 60s. Aside from the odd really old veteran they'll trot out on Remembrance day or something along those lines, I've never really seen people with first hand experience/memories talking about WW1.

That's cause there are less than 4 of them alive in the entire world, I think 3 of them died last year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Stone lived through 3 centuries and took part in the battle of jutland and witnessed the scuttling of the german fleet at scapa flow, loving surreal, we expect it to be ancient history but there was someone who saw it with his own eyes

# ¿ Jun 6, 2010 21:51

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

thetruth posted:

Did Truman really need to use Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan to force Japan to surrender? Gore Vidal said, (if I remember correctly in Why We Fight) "Truman used atomic warfare to intimidate Stalin, not to get Japan to surrender."

This is to anyone

Yes, Japan was prepared to fight to the death, shown by their anti invasion preparations.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2010 18:50

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Well, Japan had begun a campaign invading other countries like China in the early 30s, the US sure as hell didn't like this and tried to limit their expansion. but when they leveled fuel sanctions, Japan flipped its poo poo and invaded Indonesia, Singapore and attacked Pearl Harbour in an attempt to keep the US out of the pacific for good, trying to show that it would be too costly to try and prevent Japan's expansion, we all know how that turned out.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2010 16:09

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Greedish posted:

Are MPs really as badass as Lee Child shows them in his Jack Reacher books?

Hah gently caress no, they're just police dudes in the military.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2010 11:35

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Well, generally, Mussolini has very very negative connotations in the educated world, while not on a level with Hitler, he's still considered a very bad guy for all that murdering and oppressing, y'know.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2010 15:08

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Chade Johnson posted:

It was though. America wouldn't be on it's own; not to mention the Soviets would have poured in through the North.

So you're saying that the A bombs were unnecessary.
The 150,000 dead from the a bombs would be far lower than the amount of caualties on both the allied and Japanese sides if the allies invaded Japan.

Seriously, you can criticise the use of the atom bomb as a horrific and drastic measure but you cannot doubt the fact that using it probably resulted in less loss of life overall.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2010 16:06

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

No, they certainly had planes, a thousand kamikaze planes and the will to use them.
And also, the terms of surrender they asked for were simply unacceptable to the allies, they weren't going to let the Japanese government that had started and committed all those atrocities in the war continue to rule.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2010 15:51

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Both sides actions in the cold war pretty much forced the other to act, they were uneasy allies during WW2, but the real cooling of relations came due to the Truman doctrine and Marshall plan being seen as an affront to USSR influence in Europe, who then went batshit and blockaded Berlin and crushed the baltic states, installing their own puppet governments, resulting in the cold war as we know it.

Overall, at least the US tried to avoid military action in its efforts to undermine the other superpower, unlike the USSR who just went STALIN SMASH.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2010 18:06

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Yeah, in the cold war, both sides were to blame for exacerbating the tensions between them and both did terrible poo poo. But I tend to view the west less harshly since they acted due to misguided, crippling fear of the effects that communism had (gulags and poo poo). While the USSR seemed actively malevolent in some of its actions.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2010 22:01

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Chade Johnson posted:

You mean like when America implemented its half baked program of denazification, which resulted in thousands of innocent people without jobs because of their past voting record or even family heritage and thousands of death camp guards able to enjoy a quiet retirement with no threat of punishment? Because that happened too

Well, doing the Denazification programs was certainly preferable to not doing them, like they did in Japan, where there are war criminals still in power to this day.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2010 22:16

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

5inc posted:

I may be completely wrong here, but I got the impression that part of the Sherman's success vis-a-vis the heavier German Panthers and King Tigers was that the battleground in Western Europe was much more favorable to more light tanks than fewer heavy ones. Hitler seemed obsessed with creating tanks to match the Russians, without realizing that those same tanks would have most of their advantages of heavy armor and powerful guns negated in the close quarters of French towns and fields. A Panther in the wide plains of central and eastern Europe could take on many Shermans at a distance, but could never defend its flanks and rear alone in confined spaces. All the armor in the world can't help you when there's always another Sherman or bazooka-man waiting behind every corner to plink your engine while you're trying to draw a bead on the target to your front. It's very similar to the reasons the US patrols Basra or Kabul in Bradleys instead of Abrahms.

Not really, any armoured vehicle is not going to fare well in city blocks, where its mobility is restricted and is vulnerable to attack from infantry anti-tank weapons, shermans faced this exact problem as well, and they won because there were far more of them.
Also, I don't see your latter point, Abrams and Bradleys are two completely different types of armoured vehicle used for different roles. An Abrams being a main battle tank, while Bradleys are armoured personnel carriers, and the US have been fielding Abrams tanks in Iraq for years, since they offer a higher level of protection and firepower than any other armoured vehicle.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2010 12:18

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

5inc posted:

Yes, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Lighter, faster, more maneuverable and numerous Shermans are going to fare better in built-up areas than heavier, slower Panthers, who are only going to be more vulnerable given their lesser numbers. There's no point hauling lots of heavy armor and weaponry into an environment where it can't be utilized.

My latter point followed from that - Abrams and Bradleys are two completely different vehicles, developed for two completely different roles. The Germans, it seems to me, were still trying to use the same vehicles for both functions - sending heavy tanks designed for conflicts at Kursk or El-Alamein into built-up environments that nullified most of their advantages. That's why the US, while they do use Abrams in Iraq, don't use them to patrol cities, as I said before.

No, the US absolutely uses tanks to patrol cities, see fallujah, where they were used extensively to provide infantry support, also, there is absolutely a point in hauling lots of heavy armour and weaponry, just cause you're fighting in a city doesn't automatically negate the adantages of better armour and firepower.
Look at the hedgerows of normandy for instance, which were exactly the cramped, terrain limiting evironments you describe and were where the allies met the fiercest resistance and took the worst casualties.

Shermans were not better suited to tank combat on the western front, they were inferior to panthers in every way, but for reliability and having far, far superior numbers.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2010 22:10

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

pigdog posted:

Wow, this "lady" really looks like a bitch. Compare this to the disassembly of an AK-47 style weapon - for which no tools are needed:

If you're going to make a point that the AK series are less complicated, fine, but don't imply things which aren't true, no rifle in service with any military today needs tools to disassemble.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2010 17:43

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

OctaviusBeaver posted:

Can someone explain why the 76mm Sherman was so different from the 75mm Sherman? The numbers make it seem like such a small difference but apparently it had a large effect, why was that?

The 76mm gun was a completely different gun to the 75mm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1, with almost double the armour penetration, allowing it to penetrate German tanks such as Panthers and Tigers frontally at more than point blank range.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2011 22:48

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Delivery McGee posted:

I've read the after-action report on 73 Easting (and, sadly, lost the link). If you can find it, it'll answer your question -- there was a lot of friendly fire in that battle. I forget the Abrams-vs-Abrams stats (I think they are proof against their own silver bullets on the front and not so much on the sides, as you'd expect, but don't quote me), but the APC results were pretty funny -- drat near every shell hole in a Bradley (and there were quite a few Bradleys hit) was small and "slightly radioactive," which means depleted uranium penetrator, which means it came from an M1. The report does not say whether they were targeted or just drove between an M1 and a T72. Whatever the case, it turns out an APFSDS lawn dart doesn't do much to a lightly-armored APC, it just goes through and leaves a tiny hole and the crew barely notices. The only friendly-fire hard kill was one Bradley putting a TOW missile into another.

How the gently caress does the bradley crew not notice a 2km/s, pyrophoric, long rod penetrator spalling the gently caress outta the insides of their vehicle?
:psyduck:

# ¿ Sep 12, 2011 22:28

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

wdarkk posted:

Apparently the projectile was just going too drat fast to do anything other than punch a tiny hole, since there was almost nothing offering resistance.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure a KE penetrator hitting a lightly armoured APC is gonna gently caress it up. It may go straight through, but there are the effects of the round, the pyrophoric effects of the DU spontaneously igniting, white hot spalling of the armour flying about the interior and eviscerating the crew comes to mind.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2011 22:59

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

GyverMac posted:

What about tactical nukes? Or dirty bombs?

Okay, I agree my earlier statement was a bit generalizing but i still stand by my point, Iran should never get acces to nuclear technology.

Why again would Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2011 17:53

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

One thing I know about contemporary special forces is that I would not want to be anywhere near a Russian hostage rescue operation.

Hey how many hostage takers have gotten away? :colbert:

# ¿ Nov 26, 2011 14:14

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Magni posted:

Aye. Some firefights in Afghanistan had seasoned Taliban fighters, often old veterans from fighting the Red Army, that were apparently able of literally lobbing RPG-7 rounds in a ballistic arc with enough accuracy for that tactic to become a real threat to Coalition infantry during firefights and hit&run attacks on FOBs.

(The ones used as improvised AA weapons by the Afghans and Somalis were/are modified btw, normally by welding some steel pipe to the rear end of the weapon to redirect the backblast and by replacing the impact fuse with a simple time-delayed fuse; sometimes they also add a frag sleeve to the warhead.)

There's no need to modify the fusing, the impact fuse also detonates after 400m.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2011 00:27

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

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

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Zionist_en_fuego posted:

This is the semantic argument I knew was coming. I mean invaders, not invasion - I do not believe it is common to refer to the US forces in Europe as "the US invaders" (and I don't think I'm being pedantic here). Invaders is a loaded word with a clear and distinct connotation. I try to avoid normative terminology whenever I can. Some examples would be: freedom fighters, liberators, GWOT, collateral murder, spreading democracy, axis of evil, benevolent occupation, and invaders.

I think that's a fair point, whilst describing the Israeli invasion is objective fact, using the term 'Israeli invaders' certainly has a pejorative aspect to it.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2011 22:28

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

5inc posted:

I can see the physical infrastructure being kept out of German hands, but what would the more intangible cost of relocation be? I'm thinking here of the remarkable paralysis that resulted from Stalin's absence at the beginning of the invasion, and also of the huge amount of information contained in physical records and individual minds that helped run the complex Soviet state. Even if that could all be moved in good order, how capable would the dislocated government be while in transit? How long would it take them to set up in a new location, and how much institutional capacity would be lost or misplaced in the process? Moreover, how would the Soviet state as a whole react to the central authority going more-or-less quiet? How big would the loss of operational capacity be, and would it be sufficient to tip the balance of the struggle?

Imagine the Empire State building being emptied out and rigged to blow. It could, I'm sure, be accomplished in relatively little time, given proper planning, but what would be the value of the lost productivity of the companies located therein? Hell, anyone who's ever moved house knows that the disruption caused by the process extends far beyond the physical move itself. Things are lost, people go out-of-contact, and it takes a good bit both before and after the process to resume your normal life. It's that loss of initiative and productivity that I'm wondering about.

None of those factors are as troublesome as moving practically your entire industrial base to the urals in wartime. It would have sucked to lose Moscow but I don't think that would have irreparably damaged the Soviet war effort.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2012 20:37

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

raptus posted:

Uranium is an element, yes, but DU is a nuclear waste product. Or at least the DU that is used on battlefields today is. That is why I consider it a nuclear weapon despite it not creating a big explosion nor emitting gamma radiation. However I suspect that the tank-crew being hit by a DU penetrator could not tell the difference between the resulting fireball and an explosion.

From my understanding the immediate gamma-radiation effect of a dirty bomb is serious although very small compared to the harm from the long-term toxicity and alpha radiation that results, unless the area is decontaminated. In fact a dirty bomb does not have to emit gamma radiation in order to be dangerous, contaminating the area in alpha-emitting particles creates a serious hazard.

You are absolutely correct that DU does not emit gamma radiation. My point is that once a battlefield is blanketed in DU residue and dust, the effect on the population remaining in the area would be similar in the long run as if a dirty bomb had been used.

Dude, it's not correct to classify depleted uranium as a nuclear weapon just because it's called uranium and another isotope of it is used in nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear waste product, it is a chemical waste product, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium, make no mistake, in no stage of uranium enrichment does any nuclear process happen at all, it's all chemical, depleted uranium is literally just a very dense metal that's poisonous like pretty much all other heavy metals.

To classify depleted uranium shells in the same breath as actual nuclear weapons is wrong.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2012 17:37

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Mans posted:

What's with China and Japan's fascination with calling a lot of their toys "Type-X"? Are they too lazy to give a tank a proper name or is there any tatical reason for it?

What's with America's fascination with calling their tanks and guns 'M-something' and what's with the Russians calling their tanks 'T-something'?

It's a way to class machines, nothing more.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 18:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:24

Mr Crustacean: May 13, 2009; one (1) robosexual
avatar, as ordered

Speaking of Anti Ship Ballistic missiles, there's a reason that all Aegis ships are getting ballistic missile defense capability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

# ¿ May 23, 2012 11:35

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!