|
College Rockout posted:How did their Navy stack up to the German one? The German navy had very few major surface combatants and stuck to commerce raiding for most of the war. Germany's only realistic option would have been to continue submarine warfare and attempt to force a favorable end to the war. Any invasion attempt would have been a suicidal waste of resources.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
awesomeolion posted:it just seems like two factions are hating on each other with one having a significantly better military. awesomeolion posted:Why wouldn't the much stronger Warsaw Pact attack NATO? awesomeolion posted:I don't understand how there could be any risk of any nuclear destruction as long as each side has nukes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Boondocks' post reminded me of a stupid question I've kind of always wondered about. What exactly are Merchant Marines today? How were they first formed, and what function did they perform then vs. what do they do today? As for some history, Merchant Mariners suffered the highest casualty rate of any service during WW2 with 1 in 24 killed in action. They were vital to keeping the war effort going and especially to keeping England above water during the worst of the Battle of the Atlantic. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Jul 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:In highschool, my American history teacher told the class that there was only one person executed for war crimes after the US Civil War. He said it was a Russian who was incharge of a Confederate prison for Union soldiers. I couldn't find anything about it. Can anyone tell me about this?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:In Ancient/Medieval warfare how long did the actual melees last for and how did they actually pan out? Troops kept together were far more effective because of the reasons you stated, and because tight formations made communication possible. In an era when flags were the primary method of signalling on the battlefield an army that got spread out was disorganized, unwieldy, and likely to be cut apart piecemeal. Once an army was routed they were generally run down by mounted troops and slaughtered, or if they were particularly unlucky, chased into their own camp and slaughtered. Most of the killing happened after the battle was effectively over.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 11:06
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Only one of those regimes was a violent, fascist state geared pretty much exclusively for war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
melon cat posted:So why did the U.S. cut off oil shipments to Imperial Japan (leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbour)? Every resource I've looked at can't give a simple, straight answer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
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. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Dec 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:Does anyone know why Europeans tried to colonize southern Africa so much more heavily than somewhere closer? I know colonization was everywhere, and there were white settlers in Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, Cameroon, etc but why not as heavy as at the southern most end of the continent? South Africa controlled the sea lanes to East Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:At the risk of re-igniting the tank destroyer discussion - The decline in the deployment of tank destroyers really had more to do with the development of good dual-purpose guns on medium tanks than anything else. When it became clear that the medium tank, and later the MBT, was adequate both to support infantry and to kill enemy armor the tank destroyer and assault gun lost their roles. The development of guided missiles just put the final nail in the coffin when everyone and his grandma on the battlefield got a can of whoop-rear end to unleash on enemy armor at a moment's notice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Has anyone invented cluster bombs with random timed fuses? It would be very risky to clear them without a bulldozer or exploding-rope-on-a-rocket. Boiled Water posted:Children also pick them up because they look like toys or cans. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 31, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:The panther, once all of its problems were taken care of, was one of the better tanks in the war wasn't it? The Panther was a good tank when it was functional and when there were enough of them in one place to make a difference. The problem was that by the time major production started Germany was experiencing serious shortages in tooling and materials and some uncomfortable compromises had to be made. Due to those compromises Panthers were never reliable, and their final drive units had a service life of something like 200km. Which meant they had to ride railroad cars everywhere in a country that had been having its railroads bombed daily for years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Are there details on how this happened? I heard that everything went swimmingly for the British at the start of the war except for the naval stuff and that sounds backwards. My understanding is that the US barely had a navy at the start of the war because Jefferson had made major cuts to defence spending. If that is true, how did they get up to speed on Lake Erie so quickly and successfully? The Battle of Lake Eerie was a small ship action between what were essentially two squadrons made out of whatever each side could build, buy, or capture in 1812-13. The British force was short of both experienced sailors and guns since everything had to be transported to Eerie overland and naval cannon are heavy and awkward. During the battle Admiral Perry took his ships in close to batter the British with his heavier carronades which resulted in his flagship the Lawrence being totally destroyed. However at that point the two heaviest ships in the British squadron collided and became entangled due to the heavy damage they had sustained making them unmanageable. The remainder of Perry's squadron cut through the British line to rake the two entangled ships from bow and stern and by the time their crews managed to get them separated neither was in any condition to continue the fight. The smaller British vessels made a run for it, got caught, and surrendered.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Some admirals say there are only 2 type of ships: subs and targets. OperaMouse posted:Fleet locations can be followed with satellites, so surprise strikes like in WW2 are out of the question. OperaMouse posted:Drones and other UAV are slowly taking over the role of fighters. OperaMouse posted:Missiles and UAV's can be launched from subs. OperaMouse posted:Destroyers and frigates exist to launch missiles, missile protection, and ASW measures, the latter exist to protect mainly the carriers. But if we scrape the whole surface fleet, this protection is no longer needed. OperaMouse posted:So why would the US spend $6 bn on another carrier?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Anyone know how long it would take to analyze the trajectory of such a launch to verify that they weren't nuking Taiwan or Japan? Longer than it would take to volley off a dozen ICBMs in response. Which is why the US and USSR both abandoned that particular ridiculous idea 40 years ago. The DF-21D isn't just vaporware it's also a basically suicidal weapon. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Granted, it's not like they have a monopoly on retarded ideas. Occasionally though someone comes up with a really awesome retarded idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:India and China's carrier needs are different, though. China already has the capability to win a fight for Taiwan and the South China Sea - they've got hundreds of anti-ship ballistic missiles on the mainland to win the fight with a USN carrier group there. I'm sorry but the ASBM thing is a pet peeve of mine. China doesn't have hundreds of any sort of ballistic missile let alone the fabled DF-21D that nobody has actually seen tested. Edit: My arguments are more convincing when they're properly spelled. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Someone say stuff about naval development and battles between the first ironclad and the Dreadnought. Like why did ships in WW1 still have what looks like rigging. Well some of the first oceangoing steel warships did have rigging because their engines weren't particularly trustworthy and burned enormous amounts of coal. Mostly they carried just enough rigging and sail to get them underway in the event that the engines became unserviceable. After sails became totally obsolete for warships a lot of what looks like rigging was maintained because it was useful. Masts make excellent observation posts for lookouts and gunnery spotters, booms and spars are needed for use as cranes, and a shitload of wire rigging is what keeps it all from tumbling into the sea. What lead up to the Dreadnaughts was basically that long range gunnery went from being mostly a harassing fire while you close with the enemy to maul him to a deadly accurate rain of high explosives. Once a heavy warship could effectively land hits with its big guns at long range it could sit out of range of its enemy and pound away from relative safety. The medium caliber guns became obsolete because they couldn't reach far enough to play with the big boys and they couldn't fire quickly enough to hit torpedo boats.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:So how many Legends Of The West saw action in the American Civil War then? A fair number of the more notorious western figures saw action in the various paramilitary/militia/guerrilla conflicts going on in the Midwest. The Midwestern war didn't have the kind of body count the war in the East produced but it also didn't have a lot of rules. Banditry, torture, and massacres of civilians were common. When the war ended a lot of the guerrillas found themselves in a real ugly situation and headed West before they could be caught and hanged.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:I found this: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pbtyc/Janes_1919/Index.html I love the page about the RN monitors. Step 1: Find any available small hull. Step 2: Attach large caliber gun from obsolete battleship. Step 3: Kill huns!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Pyle posted:The Norseman was then reincarnated to Finland and fought on our bridge. My people tell the same story and I have heard this about every bridge on every country. It seems this same story is associated to all wars. If you think about for a second, the crazy Norseman with an axe cannot hold the bridge for a long time. Just the sheer momentum of all the guys running at the crazy defender must get him trampled in a second. I would just tell the attacking force to grab shields and run over that one crazy fool on the bridge. I think if there's truth to the story it has to do with the psychological effect one huge viking with an ax on a narrow bridge has on the front rank of a mob of soldiers chasing down a fleeing enemy. If crazy bridge-man gets the first couple front runners the guys behind them aren't going to be psyched about fighting him, and when they stop the whole force piles into the back of them and causes a giant retarded logjam at one end of the bridge. Now all crazy bridge viking needs to do is ax a couple more guys to really cause a mess when the front of the mob wants to run from him and the back of the mob is still running at him. Even if it's obvious that you could swamp the enemy not a lot of people are going to volunteer to go in first and take an ax to the head. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
Gatac posted:A bunch of very correct The primary concern behind the move from large rifle cartridges like 30.06 and 8mm to intermediate cartridges like the 7.62s and finally the 5.56/.45 has been weight savings. Most firefights don't happen at the long ranges where big full-power rifle loads are necessary, and moving to a smaller cartridge means your soldiers can use lighter weapons and carry more ammo. A soldier who can carry 15 30 round magazines has a decisive firepower advantage over a soldier who can carry 15 8 round clips for the same weight. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Oct 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:To keep wanking about the Nordic countries, what was the defense plan if Finland and Sweden got invaded by the USSR? To fall back fighting through the woods and mountains and hope nobody had nukes left to waste on Finland after Germany got turned into a glowing crater.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2011 07:26
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I've heard a flintlock pistol go off, and I'm surprised that every single soldier who fought back then didn't go deaf. Seriously, how did they avoid that? They didn't really. Most ended up with at least some hearing damage, and artillerymen pretty much all went deaf.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Jesus gently caress that first review Check out the guy's other reviews, they're hilarious. It's all Hamburger Helper, WW2 models, and Mosin Nagant paraphernalia. The highlight has got to be the Starship Troopers one though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Iceland? A tiny rock of an island with no natural resources and no harbour to speak of? A huge chunk of southeast England was used to stage for Overlord; no way Iceland's big enough for something like that, and the distance from Iceland to the UK is considerably farther than from the UK to France.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Why did torpedo nets on the side of ships fall out of use? They were common on almost all Battleships during WW1, but you don't see them at all by the time WW2 rolls around. Torpedo nets on ships were superseded by torpedo belts and bulges and later by construction techniques that used internal spaces to absorb torpedo damage. Most passive anti-torpedo measures were eventually rendered obsolete by torpedoes that could reliably detonate under the keel of the target. Modern ships rely primarily on active countermeasures to distract torpedoes and ASW sensors and aircraft to detect and prosecute unfriendly subs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I knew about the torpedo blisters, but I was referring to the booms and nets they would hang off the side of WW1 era dreadnoughts, but nets being replaced makes sense. How effective were torpedo blisters in protecting the ship?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Same here, except recommendations for the Vietnam War. The Dynamics Of Defeat: The Vietnam War In Hau Nghia Province quote:Most studies of the Vietnam War deal with the broad scope of the conflict and with major issues, organizations, or groups. Personal accounts predominate among titles dealing with more geographically focused books, e.g., the Central Highlands. Bergerud (military and American history, Lincoln Univ.) has written an important study at the province level, always in the context of wider events, which adds significantly to the understanding of the war. He concludes that the United States could not have won the war: the South Vietnamese government lacked legitimacy with its people; the National Liberation Front was organized and determined enough to overcome military setbacks; and even though Americans demonstrated an appreciation of the political aspects of the war, only in application of military strength were they effective against the enemy. For informed laypersons as well as specialists and scholars.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Americans picking off a small city here and there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
rossmum posted:Given the cost and resources involved in making a single bomb, though, and the fact that the Japanese could just disperse and dig in making it still fairly difficult for that to happen, would that have even been a possibility at that stage? Japan's not exactly big and hiding in a small cave or foxhole isn't going to help much when a nuke hits, but knowing where you actually need to drop the thing is going to be an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The South wasn't punished nearly enough over the war and it resulted in things like Jim Crow. Grand Prize Winner posted:The thing here is that your rebels were motivated by some sort of humanitarian ideals, while ours were motivated by a desire to keep owning other human beings. We didn't kill anywhere near enough of the bastards. In the entire history of human civilization the "Rape their houses and burn their women!" strategy has never actually worked as a long-term solution to anything. It is retributive barbaric idiocy that only serves to breed a new generation of rebels.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not to be all callous about it, but the Indian Wars did just that, and it utterly crushed native resistance in the US. Edit: And crippling the American Indian nations still took the better part of 200 years after smallpox had wiped out 75% of their population. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What was the largest surrender in military history by number of troops? Google isn't giving an answer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Can someone tell me why WW1 was so static yet bloody? I always hear that it was due to the generals refusal to adopt new tactics or the machine gun was too advanced to counter. The machine gun was something, but the primary killer in WWI was artillery. The introduction of hydraulic recoil mechanisms on field guns meant that instead of having to re-aim your gun for every shot you could aim once and then just sweep an entire field in front of you with shells.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Though that reminds me of something I may have mentioned in here or somewhere else before. I've always wondered how super effective of equipment modern tech could make for a soldier prior to massive use of firearms. Like kevlar and ceramic armor, carbon fiber spear shafts, that kind of stuff. Some dude with a diamond encrusted spear and sword made from the best steel alloy we have for the job. Like could you make a nigh invincible warrior or were they so good at what they made, that not even our tech would compensate. It would certainly be possible to make an armor suit that could withstand the vast majority of ancient weaponry and arms of much higher quality than their ancient counterparts. However, people weren't any dumber back in the day and they knew how to use physics to their advantage. Even if you can't cut a guy you can always knock him down if you have a big enough hammer, or a horse, or just some buddies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:This reminds me of a question I've always had, and though it addresses modern military, I expect its causes are rooted in history and tradition: Why do modern militaries still divide themselves up into different service branches? What are the advantages of having separate land, sea and air branches when modern warfare relies on the successful cooperation of all these forces? It seems to me it leads to inefficiencies, and the only rationale I can come up for it is that it makes it more difficult to commit a military coup. Well it has some advantages. It prevents a single cadre of officers from running the whole thing, which as you said makes a coup harder, but also helps provide balance of forces. You don't want a bunch of Land Forces guys to gut your Navy because they don't like boats. It's also helpful to be able to have different doctrines and cultures in your different forces. Furthermore you can better allow for advanced specialization when you use a very top-down organizational structure. There's no benefit to mixing your pilots with your infantry with your submariners.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Another alleged threat to carriers, supersonic ASMs like the Sunburn, have the same problem of limited range. A surface ship or aircraft attempting to use them to attack a carrier with them would probably be detected and destroyed before it was in range, and camouflaged coastal installation could only rely on the carrier coming within a couple hundred kilometers of the site to be useful. Realistically they'd have to rely on a vessel coming withing something like 20km of the site to be useful. It's nice to have a missile with a 300km range, but if you can't turn your radar on for fear of getting blown up then your choices are limited to engaging targets within visual range or firing blindly at where you think a ship might be and hoping the missile finds it. It's the same for ASBMs. You can in theory hit anything within 2000km, but only if you can find it first. And modern nuclear carriers may be huge, but they aren't slow. They have an enormous amount of power. They can outrun most of their escorts and perform some terrifyingly violent maneuvers when they need to.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:For that matter, why is the US/NATO trying to put up a "missile defense" system in Europe? I was under the impression that ABMs are banned by treaty. Why is kind of a tricky question because there are a number of interests in play. The first obvious one is to counter ballistic missiles fired from the Persian Gulf region. I think it's more or less accepted that sooner or later someone down there is going to get a nuke and having ABM in place in Europe takes mini-MAD off the table. The US is also actively courting the former Eastern Bloc states and any reason to dump money and troops into them is a good one. There has long been rumbling that the major bases in Western Europe are no longer relevant and that the Western European states are not as in line with American policies as they should be. A lot of people think that politically and militarily bases in Poland or the Czech Republic would be more useful than current bases in Germany. Bases in Eastern Europe also serve to weaken Russia's influence in the region and perhaps make them a little less gung-ho about bombing their neighbors and playing hardball with gas exports.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Red Crown posted:The amphibious invasions in the Pacific actually don't really equate to the ones that happened in the ETO. Take Tarawa, for instance. The island was a square mile. The Japanese relied on fortifacations to defend it. At Normandy, Rommel could have brought 2 SS Panzer divisions to bear on the beaches and the surrounding area. While there was significant air support available, even that would not have been able to stop 2 tank divisions. When I say 24 hours, I meant that Rommel felt that he would have pushed allied forces off the beach in 24 hours or not at all. Advancing two armored divisions through the Normandy countryside in the face of total Allied air superiority and the largest conglomeration of naval gunnery ever assembled would likely have been a bloodbath. The fact that the local units were in disarray and the area was blanketed by American paratroopers wouldn't have made things easy either. Those two panzer divisions may have been the only hope of repulsing the invasion, but it was a long-shot at best.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 02:16
|
|