Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.

Russia threatened to start World War Three in support of Egypt; the US told France and Britain to knock it off and financially blackmailed Britain by threatening to sell off its holdings of Sterling. Britain and France backed down, the canal stayed Egyptian, Britain learned that it pretty much had to suck US dick diplomatically speaking ever since.
I disagree, the British Empire as a world power was gone by 1945. India was not salvageable by then, Palestine was a mess and so was Malaya (although they did suppress the communists there). Essentially the areas that the Empire still held were some Middle Eastern holdings/protectorates (worthless apart from Kuwait) and a whole bunch of stuff in Africa (also mostly worthless). The UK was also totally bankrupt in 1945 and received massive loans from the US and Canada, $3.75bn and $1.25bn respectively, plus all the aid from things like the ERP. The British government also didn't give up its "war socialism" powers and worked off the Beveridge report to form the NHS, massive social housing programs, etc. Military spending wasn't reduced that much either (occupying Palestine was an outrageous expense and part of the reason the UK left so quickly). The UK also had very little dollar reserves and had a massive crisis in mid-1947 when it was forced to pay out its Sterling debts with Dollars until the Americans allowed them to actually stop conversion of the Sterling.

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Yeah that guy sounds like a big Nazi fetishist or something. Originally standards at the SS were very strict, and I don't know if he specifically said it like that to clear it up, but he probably did not. The SS was actually screwed over by the OKW in this sense, as senior officers correctly saw the SS as an entity that could balloon into a competing force. Therefore the OKW actually limited SS recruitment numbers and such. Some of these strict requirements were initially held because they could only let in a limited number of people, so the logic goes that they might as well only allow aryan supermen into the organization.

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Now, being fair to the 1940 French high command, they sent and received their dispatches via motorcycle courier.


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.
Khrushchev is undeniably the looser of the whole affair, given how it was a great blow to his internal credibility within the upper levels of Soviet policy. The withdrawal was a great public embarrassment for the USSR, whilst the missiles in Turkey and the Polaris-armed subs were removed quietly. It was a considerable public-international issue, which added to mounting internal concerns that weakened his position as leader.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
They were already allies though. Fidel was extremely angry at Khrushchev once the crisis started to sour and even after the crisis (until he eventually went to Moscow and smoothed things out). It wasn't possible for Fidel to walk into the US camp, but the Missile Crisis did a lot to hurt the Soviet-Cuban relationship initially. It was just as likely that Cuba would go off and do the whole "Still communist but not Soviet-sphere" Yugoslavia dance.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
The Israelis also used 25 Avia S-199, which were BF-109Gs with a Jumo 211 engine each, which was ideal for bombers (Stukas, He-111 and Ju-88s were the main users). On the 109 airframe it preformed poorly and landings/take-offs were about as dangerous as an actual combat sortie. The Czechs made the conversion because they had a lot of Jumo 211s and lots of 109s. If I remember correctly they lasted less than a year in Israeli service because they got fed up with them.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

KildarX posted:

I am looking more for pitched battles, than cavalry.
I'd hate to bring out a cliche, but would something like Adrianople be what you're looking for? It had an important cavalry stage to the battle, but the bulk of both forces was mainly infantry. I don't know what you mean by "fair", in the sense that Valens did much to impair the rest of the Roman leadership and consensus is that he attacked when he should've waited.

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Its not so much a "heavy cavalry charge" but rather the reasonable thing to do considering that the Iraqi's had no chance at all. Therefore you might as well just run at your opponent and rout him as quickly as possible. The cavalry charge as a tactic isn't really relevant in any other situation nowadays.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Iranian F-14As can fire the aim-54 and they have some in stock and it is recognized that they can manufacture some of the spare parts associated with the missile (like the the thermal batteries, which they nearly ran out of during Iran-Iraq). Now whether they have a lot of a few is a bit of a mystery, as are claims that they have developed their own copy.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Well yes, thats why they're unconfirmed Iranian government claims, which aren't exactly the type of statement brimming with a history of credibility. Its known that they can and have produced replacements for other parts of the missile, but I agree with you in the sense that as far the most complicated (and vital) part of the weapon goes, they cannot manufacture their own. The point is that they can and do have some, and Iran has weapon systems that other NATO targets have not, and bombing it for whatever reason would be more serious as far as casualties go.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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).
The Company was much less of a Company and much more of a state. Initially, while it was still more of a trading operation than anything else, it operated as a monopoly due to having such a strong lobby within Parliament, which could give it legal backing to lock out competition. By 1670, however, Charles II gave it the right to mint its own coins, to expand without crown approval, to carry out justice on its territory and to make war. In 1708 it merged with other enterprises that challenged its monopoly, making the HIEC and effectively enlarging itself as well as maintaining its monopoly. However even with this new power it did not have much land, mostly trade ports and such. Plassey was the true turning point, as after the battle they annexed all of Bengal, after this point the HIEC was effectively a sub-state within the British one.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
Rommel was good but the level that western hero-worship takes him to as some sort of freak military mastermind is just utterly ridiculous.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Herv posted:

They should have just built T-34's, or the simple rear end kicking equivalent. one million Ha-Gos
/armchair

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Oxford Comma posted:

So pretty much Germany was done after Stalingrad?
Germany was done when it entered war with the UK and France. The Nazis (who were totally incompetent at actually running the country) pretty much got the best result possible versus France and were able to make it collapse absurdly quickly. From a standpoint of industry, resources and manpower, the Axis powers never had a chance. By Barbarossa they were just digging their own grave at full speed.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Nenonen posted:

:italy:
Italy was totally unprepared for war. More so than any other of the "major" nations. Hilariously enough though, had Italy gone to war with Germany instead of everyone else, and assuming the fighting takes place on the Austrian border (where else would they fight?), then the Italian military would have preformed better. After all, the mountain units were still quite good, as was light/specialized infantry in general. Fighting in mountainous terrain would've seen these units be the core formations in any fighting, rather than the masses of ill-equipped infantry in North Africa and the lackluster tanks than accompanied them. Also no ridiculous Regia Marina hijinks.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
The WW1 charge you are thinking of is Beersheba, which was carried out successfully by the Australian Light Horse vs. Turkish infantry and mixed artillery. Ottoman MGs were knocked out by allied artillery, and the Ottoman/German arty preformed badly against the scattered horsemen, who then got "under" the range of the guns. The Turkish riflemen in the trenches might have stopped the assault had the attackers been infantry, but they were not trained to adjust their rifle's sights against cavalry. They came on far too quickly and the infantry ended up shooting over their heads mostly.

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).

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
While it is true that Italy produced some very good mid-30s equipment, the Italian military was never really prepared for war. The economy was in shambles due to terrible Fascist policy, and the military was not in a much better state. The armed forces were not Fascist in composition, as there was still very much a traditional officer corps that was as a whole not really connected to Fascism. Obviously there were Fascists amongst them, and pretty much all of them preferred Mussolini to the socialists, but the Italian fascist party was never able to convert large numbers of public employees to the party (unlike Germany or the USSR). Rather, in Italy, Mussolini's efforts to mate the party with the state meant that the state took over the party, although people did have to join the party to be a state employee, there was still a considerable clique of older administrators, both in the civilian and the military arms of the state, who weren't Fascist.

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?
He rushed into the war, because of the speed of which the Germans defeated France, and he wanted a slice of the cake as well.
Yes, Mussolini thought that the UK would peace out after the war with France, and by joining the war he would get the land given to Napoleon III by Cavour during the Risorgimento.

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 26, 2011

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
The most famous example being at Garcia Hernandez. After the battle of Salamanca, British cavalry came upon the French rearguard. Considering the French had more men and were infantry, they should have won. However, the KGL horse pushed the attack and indeed a wounded horse broke open a French square. That square soon broke, and a second one was charged and broke merely because they were quite shaken by what they had just seen. The rest of the French retreated in good order.

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.
Which incident are you referring to here? The Anglo-allied cavalry carried out many attacks on French infantry through the battle, but the only one against infantry ready to take the attack in a square formation was at the end. In that case, the Old Guard held against the cavalry.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
Not knowing anything other than the most basic stuff about Finland, I have a question. Supposing that (for whatever handwaved reason) the USSR does not carry out the Winter War, would Finland be neutral in 1941? Or would they find a way to stay neutral a la Sweden? I don't know if its true, but Finland is always depicted as being much more pro-Nazi. Now whether that was pre-Winter War or a result of it I haven't a clue.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

lilljonas posted:

Awesome post, keep it coming.

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
By the end of the war about 60% of soviet trucks were made in the USA. Also almost all rail transport, both locomotive and car, was American-made. The Western Allies were even giving the Soviets shipments of combat rations.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Jiriam posted:

Who would win?

dokmo posted:

Here's a nifty table from Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction:



and this plot from wikipedia:



dokmo posted:

I found this table in Richard Overy's Russia's War


Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
I don't think that anyone would deny that if the western allies are the aggressors in a immediate ww3 scenario they would face massive political problems and at the very least being beaten back all the way to France. Morale would bottom out pretty much instantly too.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Nenonen posted:

What if Soviets replaced Churchill and Roosevelt with cyborgs in the Yalta conference? Black gay cyborgs?

And how do we know that this didn't happen?

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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!

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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:

Rank Insignia of the German Army
Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy (brief maintenance instructions for common and uncommon weapons)
Destroy Enemy Tanks! (how to fight a tank with no anti tank weapons)
How Fascists Combat Partisans
Rules of Interrogation
How to Fight an Airborne Enemy
Life in the Snow
Hand to Hand Combat
Camouflage
Combat Arms (same thing as Learn the Weapons of Your Enemy, but for Soviet weapons)
Travel and Campground
Scouting
So wish this was in English :sigh:

(cool pics though, thanks for the link)

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
Thanks! Very interesting, now I can stop a Pz.II with my buddies if need be.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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
This is overblown for some reason. Its true that everyone and their grandma pulled their moisins out and rushed to scene. However, while this is part of the incompetent handling of the siege by the government, it probably did not result in many casualties. What did cause a massive amount of casualties was storming a tightly packed, booby-trapped, gymnasium with waves of special forces supported by T-72s, APCs, and armed helicopters including at least one Mi-24 Hind. Then they fired Shemel rockets, which have fuel-air warheads. Some conscripts and police also apparently refused to enter the battle.

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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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 army as a whole is bad. The units deployed to Chechnya and then to South Ossetia are mostly the good, well-equipped formations.

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!

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
beep beep best ww1 poster coming through

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.
If you deploy large amounts of heavy artillery you have shifted the scope of the action to the theater level. Large amount of heavy artillery firing for a long time probably would make a mess of the front lines, but such a bombardment would make it very clear to the enemy that it is likely that there will be a push in that sector. As such reserve formations in that area could be reinforced appropriately. And then the blooodbath happens anyways, it just happens after you overrun the first few sets of trenches.

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).

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

SeanBeansShako posted:

Wait what? This sounds insanely hilarious.
Here is a quick rundown:

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 :black101:. 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.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

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.

So long artillery barrages could suppress infantry to a degree but this stupid week-long poo poo, like they tried before the Somme, was a waste.
This is true, but it still doesn't change the situation. If the bombardment lasts for so long, then the reserves that the enemy has had time to bring up are ready. And those formations will be close to the front, but out of the heavily bombarded area and therefore not shellshocked to hell and back.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011
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.

  • Locked thread