|
feedmegin posted:You have an odd definition of 'finished off'. The war furthered the job the First World War had started of bankrupting the Empire, but it stuck around for quite a while afterwards. If you want the real death knell I'd say that was the Suez Crisis in 1957, when Britain and France basically encouraged Israel under the table to invade Egypt (which had just nationalised the British/French-owned Suez Canal), and then stepped in as 'peacekeepers' to secure said canal. The UK was in no state to hold on to any of the valuable/volatile parts of the Empire in a long-term fashion by the end of WW2. Same goes for France. Suez just hammered in the point.
|
# ¿ Aug 4, 2011 20:11 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 06:26 |
|
AbdominalSnowman posted:I was watching old re-runs of Deadliest Warrior (though I know full well it does not do a very good job of being historically accurate...at all really) and something caught my attention during the SS vs. Viet Cong episode. Their "SS Expert" (basically just a German guy who is exactly as creepy as you would imagine) was talking about how stringent the requirements to join the SS were. He was saying something about having to be like 5'10, have a family history dating back like 10 generations, and not being able to even have so much as a single filling in your tooth, along with some other poo poo I can't remember. It sounded really off too me, and I tried doing a little research on my own where I read that the height requirement was true, but only for officers. I find it hard to believe that all of those requirements existed, but I wanted to hear from people who knew about it. I seem to recall that the SS had a low recruitment priority and the fact that they still threw together so many units makes me skeptical. Following the Polish campaign the SS had its limits lifted though, and it went from 15,000 men to over 100,000 and was allowed its own divisions. At this point the requirements were lowered a lot since they wanted as many people as they could get.
|
# ¿ Aug 5, 2011 11:33 |
|
Ograbme posted:Why was the French leadership in WW2 so lethargic? It sounds like they were getting reports via bicycle courier and sleeping on every decision. Alchenar posted:In retrospect, Khrushchev got US missiles withdrawn from Turkey for nothing more than a return to the status quo ante in Cuba. He won.
|
# ¿ Aug 14, 2011 14:18 |
|
Nenonen posted:Not really. Castro got REALLY pissed with Soviets for making the deal with USA without so much as informing them first. This meant that Soviets couldn't be trusted for support should the US invade Cuba. The Bay of the Pigs episode of 1961 was the primary reason for why the Cuban government thought having the Soviet missiles there was a good idea: USA couldn't attack the country again without triggering a nuclear war. Cuba was left seemingly defenseless again. Castro initially opposed the missiles too, and then wanted them to be installed publicly so the USA couldn't claim any sort of dirty business on their part. But then he agrees to the Soviet shipping plan anyways. Then when Fidel supports the missiles publicly once the crisis erupts, and wants the nuclear strike capability on the island, the Soviets start to backtrack. So from his point of view hes being led around as if it were some kind of joke.
|
# ¿ Aug 14, 2011 17:38 |
|
Wastrel_ posted:I don't see it that way though. I tend to think that the USSR still came up on top because they gained an ally that would be a constant thorn in the American side for several decades, and that also helped spread Communism in the Third World over that same period of time.
|
# ¿ Aug 15, 2011 11:55 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Israel, too! The Israeli army used German helmets and Kar98ks for a period of time, until they got their own industry going.
|
# ¿ Aug 24, 2011 14:34 |
|
Does anyone know of any good books about the Nationale Volksarmee? I do not know if I'm just being awful searching for it, but it would seem that there is very little about it outside of German texts. If anyone knows please let me know, I'd prefer if the book(s) are in English or Spanish but I'm still comfortable with Italian or French editions.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2011 23:10 |
|
KildarX posted:I am looking more for pitched battles, than cavalry. Another example might be Spartacus' War/Third Servile War. Slave/prisioner/gladiator forces did defeat government forces on the field until the Senate got its act together and appointed Crassus to stomp out the conflict.
|
# ¿ Sep 7, 2011 18:33 |
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: slightly less of a tangent: It amuses me that 73 Easting was basically a heavy cavalry charge, using essentially the same tactics as the knights of old. Sure, you've got depleted-uranium lawn darts and Browning .50s instead of lances and swords, but the movements are the same with tanks as with horses. It makes sense, I suppose -- Patton, who wrote the book on tanks (well, read that magnificent bastard's book and added his own comments) was originally a horseman, and designed the last serious fighting sword before he was put in a tank and out-blitzed the blitzkrieg.
|
# ¿ Sep 11, 2011 12:54 |
|
Diplomatic considerations aside, even just bombing Iran is not as simple as it seems. The IRIAF has not changed greatly since the end of the Iran-Iraq war (with the exception being all those Iraqi aircraft that flew to Iran) and it does not have a large amount of good planes, its biggest asset being 20-something operational F-14s. However, it has a lot of experienced personnel, an actual SAM network, and is looking to acquire more modern equipment, mainly either Su-30s or J-10s. The point being that even bombing Iran would provoke losses to the US/assorted allies, unlike the pre-war bombings of Iraq, or the missions over Libya now. The US would most likely be able to meet all of its objectives, but from a media/pr point of view it would not be cakewalk.
|
# ¿ Sep 11, 2011 21:44 |
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I don't think the Iranian F-14's have the ability to load Phoenix missiles, which kind of takes away the point of having a Tomcat in the first place. So basically they have a bunch of carrier interceptors without teeth and without a carrier.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2011 12:05 |
|
bewbies posted:Unless something has changed dramatically in the last two years Iran really doesn't have the capability to copy the Phoenix, in particular the nose cone. The Phoenix's radar was a ridiculously powerful and versatile thing, and its nose cone was made of a super high-tech ultra thin ceramic setup that had to be able to allow through a half dozen different electronic wavelengths and at the same time withstand the heat of traveling Mach 6 and however many Gs.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2011 18:25 |
|
EvanSchenck posted:Adam Tooze goes into close detail on this in "The Wages of Destruction." This is an excellent book and I think it is a very important read for anyone who wants to understand either Germany or WW2 better.
|
# ¿ Sep 16, 2011 11:05 |
|
Delivery McGee posted:The East India company always amuses me. You think modern PMCs are bad? The British East India company was pretty much a sovereign imperial power -- it had a private army, collected taxes in its dominions, and was for a large part of its history only answerable to the Crown in a technical sense (either by being too powerful to gently caress with or by having the British parliament in its pocket to an extent modern lobbyists can only dream of).
|
# ¿ Sep 17, 2011 11:22 |
|
Surely if he was black he would not have enjoyed as much popularity in Germany though. Since we don't have an SS in this timeline, and the SA does not field its own divisions, then the non-white troops would surely join the regular heer. I'm sure aryan officers will be fine with black men in the ranks, after all the fuhrer is black too! Best "what-if" on the thread so far. edit: If Hitler was not only gay but openly so, there would most probably be a much more relaxed attitude as far as social norms and attitudes go. Considering the period, it would make Nazi Germany much more progressive than anyone else. Also no homosexuals die in the camps! (at least not for being exclusively homosexual) Would Gay Black Hitler still want to gas all the jews? Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Sep 18, 2011 |
# ¿ Sep 18, 2011 19:12 |
|
Rommel was good but the level that western hero-worship takes him to as some sort of freak military mastermind is just utterly ridiculous.
|
# ¿ Sep 21, 2011 18:08 |
|
Herv posted:They should have just built
|
# ¿ Sep 23, 2011 14:09 |
|
Oxford Comma posted:So pretty much Germany was done after Stalingrad?
|
# ¿ Sep 24, 2011 23:56 |
|
Nenonen posted:
|
# ¿ Sep 25, 2011 15:28 |
|
Ferrosol posted:Actually the last British Cavalry charge was the battle of Battle of Omdurman in 1898 where the 400 men of the 21st Lancers (accompanied by a novice war correspondent named Winston Churchill) charged a group of 2500 Sudanese infantry and forced them to retreat. The last cavalry charge by British affiliated forces iirc was October 1918 when some Australian cavalry successfully charged Ottoman infantry and routed them at the battle of Aleppo?. While the last successful cavalry charge was by some Italian Cavalry in 1943 on the eastern front where they successfully repulsed a russian attack with a cavalry charge. As for the Italians, if you are thinking of the engagement in Isbusenskij (probably not how its spelled correctly) in 1942, that was the last considerable cavalry charge against regular forces ever. The Savoia Dragoon regiment outflanked soviet infantry and artillery positions, using sabers even. The rest of the Italian forces took the town. Since then there have been other charges, but either against irregulars or on a very small scale. Another relevant WW2 charge was in Yugoslavia in 1942, again featuring the Italians, who routed a considerable amount of partisans around Poloj (in what is now Bosnia I think).
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2011 18:41 |
|
feedmegin posted:Well, it's more Italy was very well prepared for war - in about 1935. They militarised earlier than everyone else (the Fascists having come to power earlier, I suppose) and thus had obsolete gear in 1939 that would have been top-notch a few years earlier. The Soviets had something of the same problem. Therefore, while there was a sort of Fascist impulse for the armed forces to be strong and modern, they weren't supposed to be that strong or independent, as they might get uppity regards to Mussolini (and they finally did in '43). The Italian army was as fit for war in 1935 as it would be 5 years later, i.e. not ready at all. Profound problems regarding training, proper officer independence, and structured logistical organization did not pop up between 1935 and 1940. Edit: OperaMouse posted:Didn't Mussolini declare war with 3/4 of the Italian merchant marine outside of the Med, often even at the docks in Allied harbors and so directly impounded? Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 26, 2011 |
# ¿ Sep 26, 2011 19:55 |
|
Alchenar posted:There are other occasions as well: the problem is that if a horse is hurt from a source it can identify then it will turn away, but if a horse is shot it moves towards the source of pain. If soldiers shot a horse charging at them a bit too late then even if they killed it, momentum alone would carry it straight on into their lines and smash open a gap in their formation. Another issue is rain or wet conditions, at Katzbach, French chasseurs forced Prussian infantry to go into square. However, it was too wet for either the Prussians to fire at the French, or for the ground to be hard enough for the chasseurs to work up speed for the charge. Therefore they stood around for a while, the infantry unable to move as it would break the square, and the cavalry being unable to get too close since bayonets reach further than sabres. Unfortunately for the Prussians, lancers arrived and promptly broke their square. Alchenar posted:Finally, there's an account of one of the big French squares at the close of Waterloo being overrun.
|
# ¿ Oct 1, 2011 17:25 |
|
Nenonen posted:The land they got near Leningrad from Finland was occupied by Finns again in 1941 (and a little more), so in the end it wasn't gainful for the defense of Leningrad. Especially when the sole reason for Finland to join the war on German side was to win that area back, so the land they got from Finland put Leningrad under a huge risk. Had Finnish and German armies met in Tihvin east of Ladoga, they would have closed the ring around Leningrad. Finnish neutrality would have been more valuable for Soviets in 1941.
|
# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 19:53 |
|
lilljonas posted:Being rather ignorant about Japan, could you please shed any light on the resurgence of gunpowder weaponry and warfare. I'm referring to the fall of the Edo system and the Meji restoration. I know the new Imperial forces fought conservative factions, which I always had a basic understanding of them being basically old cranky Samurai. However since your post sheds some light on the social dynamics of the Samurai under the Tokugawa I'm starting to doubt the narrative of noble horsemen vs. Imperial riflemen à la the Last Samurai.
|
# ¿ Oct 6, 2011 00:52 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's important to note the MASSIVE amount of lend-lease equipment that the US sent to the Soviets. The Soviets were able to make so many tanks and artillery because the US supplied a poo poo ton of their trucks. And the USSR didn't have to build a huge gently caress off Navy like the US did.
|
# ¿ Oct 9, 2011 21:32 |
|
Jiriam posted:Who would win? dokmo posted:Here's a nifty table from Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction: dokmo posted:I found this table in Richard Overy's Russia's War
|
# ¿ Oct 10, 2011 11:59 |
|
For the poor state that the western allies were in at the end of hostilities in Europe, they were still way better off than the Soviets. Sure, they would've had a very hard time continuing the war, but the problems of the western allies would be mainly political ones in justifying and legitimizing the war. The USSR, on the other hand, would have problems of every sort except political ones.
|
# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 17:42 |
|
EvanSchenck posted:You guys keep making this little side note points like "the Soviets had a manpower shortage" and "the USA had nukes," but what you actually need to do is come up with an explanation of how the Allies would prevent the Soviet Army from completely trashing SHAEF inside of one month, and how the British and American governments would survive the reaction of their people not only to the pointless betrayal of their Soviet ally but also to an ensuing military debacle involving probably hundreds or thousands of casualties. This is the actual immediate problem facing Operation Unthinkable.
|
# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 20:11 |
|
Nenonen posted:What if Soviets replaced Churchill and Roosevelt with cyborgs in the Yalta conference? Black gay cyborgs? Well then they did a really bad job with the FDR robot because it broke down pretty quickly. If we apply the same quality of dedication to their post-WW2 offensive, I think we can determine that they would be easily defeated by non-cyborg Truman.
|
# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 21:54 |
|
When the locals couldn't just be wiped out, most of it was just enabling the local elites to keep on oppressing the local poors, with all the benefits of being co-opted into the European colonial system with newer and more efficient organization and resources.
|
# ¿ Nov 5, 2011 14:55 |
|
I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about Black units in the US military in the Pacific theater (WW2)? I mean actual formations, be they land, sea or air, not some guy cleaning a ship or something. Where the Marines all-white at this point? thanks!
|
# ¿ Nov 14, 2011 13:07 |
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This page has several chapters from the Partisan's Companion, a book that was written to help Soviet citizens organize resistance against German forces. The chapters are as follows: (cool pics though, thanks for the link)
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2011 11:41 |
|
Thanks! Very interesting, now I can stop a Pz.II with my buddies if need be.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2011 23:21 |
|
Rabhadh posted:The Belsan school siege turned to poo poo when every parent with a gun showed up to lend a hand and the security forces on site couldn't keep them away, amongst other things Although lots of FSB, OMON and MVD troops were deployed in addition to local police and army units, almost no special medical services were brought in. They had plenty of time to do it and the resources to bring in more medics, ambulances, etc. but seemingly nobody bothered to do so. Firefighters were also totally unprepared. So yeah, they bothered to bring in tanks and attack helicopters to storm a schoolhouse, but they didn't think to bring in a few more ambulances. The fault doesn't fall on the shoulders of some concerned parents with their own rifles, but rather on the immense incompetence of the Russian state. After all, considering it's track record, in that situation I'd rather do it myself before letting the Russian army deal with it.
|
# ¿ Nov 26, 2011 16:49 |
|
Mans posted:And they're not "bad". That's a really weird adjective to call an army. They've been in Chechnya for years without a gaping hole in casualties and the South Ossetian conflict was dealt with swiftness. The same stuff happened during the Soviet era. The conscript system in Russia is downright horrible. With new recruits coming in every six months for a two year period. This results in the older conscripts abusing the new recruits in every way they want. Seniority counts for more than rank, you can have a 20 month private telling a 2 month NCO to give him his rations, or his clothes. Clothes are very popular to steal and new recruits are "traded" really old items for their newly issued uniforms. The new recruits then have the incentive to perpetuate the system, because once they're done their first six months they now have bitches to boss around. Hazings, psychical and sexual abuse, etc. is incredibly widespread as well. Soldiers will also sell anything thats not bolted down to the locals. There is a very small proportion of officers, and they cannot really control the troops because they still have to do things. In fact, they end up having to entrust a lot of tasks that in most armies would be given to common troops to junior officers or professional NCOs. High-ups know that this is the situation, and politicians too, since (especially during Soviet times) most have seen service as officers. Theres a reason that the Soviet divisions in Europe had a higher % of officers and volunteers. When the invasion of Afghanistan first happened, there were normal divisions of the central-Asian districts thrown in, and they preformed very poorly. After they thought better and realized that they would have to send more professional formations. Theres an attitude that it can't be helped, due to the size of the armed forces, which is seen as a matter of pride (and its essentially a huge diplomatic bluff). However, it must therefore rely on conscripts if its going to be so big, and the army is going to get the shittiest pick of conscripts. The smarter ones are going to go to the specialist branches, then air force and navy will get their picks, then the army gets the rest. One must also remember that the key formations (and this is particularly important when it comes to the more technical branches of the military) are staffed with ethnic Russians, which are seen as loyal to the Russian state. You get a lot of lower quality formations that are just filled with more random ethnic groups that are seen as useless even by Russian army standards. (This was something that was even worse during Soviet times, when only Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians could really be trusted). Sorry for the text wall!
|
# ¿ Nov 26, 2011 17:58 |
|
beep beep best ww1 poster coming through
|
# ¿ Nov 28, 2011 19:24 |
|
Alchenar posted:Depends on the artillery and on the target. For example many attacks in WW1 failed because the initial bombardment wasn't long or heavy enough and the wire and critical emplacements weren't destroyed. Only if you achieve that can you get onto issues of suppressing enemy reinforcements or timing the infantry assault correctly. For "ww1 action before ww1" one can also look at actions like Gravelotte or Spion Kop. The War of the Triple Alliance also has plenty of trench and infantry waves going on too, and that was totally overlooked by everybody (and it still is).
|
# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 13:39 |
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Wait what? This sounds insanely hilarious. Francisco Solano Lopez is lucky enough to be born to Carlos Antonio Lopez, who basically ruled Paraguay as his own personal playthings. Now, as far as cruel military dictators go, the Lopez family wasn't that bad, as they kept the country reasonably stable (anything would look stable compared to the Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay of that period anyways) and modernized quite a bit. Solano Lopez was sent as a diplomat to Europe, in order to inspect the latest gimmicks and the prettiest military uniforms (of which he bought loads), this is also when he fell in love with Elisa Lynch, who was a prostitute and ultimately ended up being very influential. Anyways, Solano Lopez wanted a way to reach the ocean and secure Paraguay's export routes. He therefore meddled in Uruguayan politics. Of course, so did Brasil and Argentina (who had been warring, and then not warring, and then pseudo-warring in the area for decades). Solano Lopez is angered by extensive Brasilian influence in Uruguay, and therefore he allies with the Blancos (who were opposed to the Colorados) and decides to intervene in Uruguay, and declares war on Brasil. Argentina was initially neutral, but then Solano Lopez thought it would be a good idea to take a shortcut through Argentine land. Argentina then declared war on Paraguay, giving Paraguay the singular honor of getting 19th century Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay to agree on something. At the start of hostilities it didn't look that bad for Paraguay. Solano Lopez had his neat European-modeled army, whilst everyone else had been stuck in civil wars and had very poor militaries. Initially, Paraguay overran the allied armies, and essentially ran wild for about a year. The allies started gearing up however, and an allied fleet (mainly Brasilian) sailed up the Rio de La Plata and defeated the Paraguayan fleet at the battle of Riachuelo. This meant that Paraguay had no hope of projecting its power down to the ocean, and therefore that it would be unable to accomplish what it had intended. Time to cede some disputed border territories and then peace out right? Wrong! Since this is a conflict involving military dictatorships on all sides, the war continued for five more years (until 1870). The Paraguayans were then forced back by the allies (under the general command of Mitre), and pushed onto their own ground. A series of really bloody battles followed. At Tuyutí pretty much the entire male youth of the Paraguayan ruling class charged at the allied lines. This led to some 15,000 losses and the death of both the Paraguayan cavalry and a good chunk of their officer corps. At Curupayty the allies repaid the favour, and since the Brasilian navy was kept at a distance from the Paraguayan lines by heavy artillery, about 20% of the allied army (some 4000 men) became casualties in exchange for a little over 100 Paraguayans killed. The Paraguayan army was so worn down however, that it could not counterattack. The allies continued to push, and even though Argentina and Brasil had a whole bunch of internal revolts going on, they wanted to go for the gold. Paraguay was essentially falling apart, with children being conscripted and not having enough firearms to go around. Eventually, Solano Lopez was forced to abandon Asunción itself, and fled to the hills, were he was hunted down by Brasilian cavalry. He died rather than be captured. Brasil and Argentina ended up annexing some Paraguayan land, and the war finally ended. As to the death toll, the allies lost some ~90,000 men (mostly Brasilians dying in the jungle rather than in battle, as it tended to happen back then) and Paraguay lost over 300,000 soldiers and civilians. Thats 300,000 out of a pre-war population of half a million. Add to that the fact that the post-war population had five adult women for each man. Its been calculated that some 80-90% of the Paraguayan adult male population was killed during the war. Edit: thats not quick at all so here is the tl;dr version: Paraguay thinks its a good idea to invade Brasil and Argentina at the same time. Paraguay wins initially, but then the allies go . 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.
|
# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 18:59 |
|
BeigeJacket posted:There's this quote I read recently from a British NCO, who said that after three hours of being shelled one tends to go numb and lose the ability to re-act to situations in a timely manner.
|
# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 19:41 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 06:26 |
|
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 |