|
The graph is also extremely correct, so who cares?
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
TinTower posted:The former, I think. I think graphs and idiots and social media probably have a large overlap of readers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
PYF Awful Graph: Anticlimactic Incidental Battles
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
In which the largest battle in the history of warfare is “anticlimactic”.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:In which the largest battle in the history of warfare is “anticlimactic”. D-DAY doesn't even get that mention. Not even a dot on June 1944
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
I notice that apparently the Germans had one extra battle all by themselves according to that chart. Alamein I must assume was Germans vs. Germans, which they did just for fun.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
So what happened on the 10th of August 1941 that took the Nazis from a 99% win to near certain loss? Wiki just has some diplomatic talks between FDR and Churchill. Did they agree they should fight back that day or something?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Well August was the first successful counterattack by Soviet forces, so presumably that. Really the day the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa was the day they lost the war ranbo das has a new favorite as of 03:56 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Which one was that? I thought it was the day Hitler decided to reenact 'crossing the alps with elephants' using Russia, heavy machinery and half his army.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
I want to know how declaring war on the soviet union improved Germany's odds of winning in the short term.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:I want to know how declaring war on the soviet union improved Germany's odds of winning in the short term. It showed initiative, which got investors interested.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Which one was that? I thought it was the day Hitler decided to reenact 'crossing the alps with elephants' using Russia, heavy machinery and half his army. Yes, that's Barbarossa. Vorpal Cat posted:I want to know how declaring war on the soviet union improved Germany's odds of winning in the short term. Basically the Russian army was disorganized as gently caress at that point which is why Germany was able to make so many early gains. If Germany had actually managed to take Stalingrad Russia might have folded (at least, officially. Like France, most likely any attempt by Germany to actually OCCUPY Russia would have just been a protracted guerrilla war that would have bled Germany dry), but Barbarossa itself was incredibly mismanaged too, basically evening things up and giving Russia the time it needed to organize a counter-offensive. The Cheshire Cat has a new favorite as of 04:39 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yes, that's Barbarossa. Despite Stalin's well-documented disbelief that Hitler betrayed him, he had spent decades building up industry beyond the Urals for just this type of predicament, so a free Eastern USSR would probably have been able to support insurgency in the occupied portions of the USSR for longer than the Nazis could have prevailed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I never knew how much I needed win probability graphs for all the wars. One dumb thing that with that graph is that I'd like to point out is how it starts out at mere 51-49 German advantage.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
All the really cutting edge stuff was still pretty close to the border. I guess you can't really get highly qualified professionals and universities to move to bumfuck nowhere just in case there's an invasion.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:So what happened on the 10th of August 1941 that took the Nazis from a 99% win to near certain loss? Wiki just has some diplomatic talks between FDR and Churchill. Did they agree they should fight back that day or something? August is around the time that the German high command is arguing about whether to push on Moscow (the army's preference) or strike south to envelope the Soviet concentrations around Kiev (Hitler's preference). There is a certain school of thought - more pervasive on the internet than in serious academia - that had the Moscow option been taken, the Germans definitely would have taken Moscow, and that definitely would have won the war. In fact, the former is extremely dubious, and the latter is very unclear.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 06:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
As I see it the Germans would have had to attack Stalingrad anyways because A) it was a major industrial center, B) not doing so would have left rail lines open for the Soviets to move forces into the Caucasus and bring Lend Lease supplies north through Iran, and C) they needed the oil in the Caucasus and not attacking Stalingrad would have left a major strongpoint at their backs.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
 Context: British Columbia is currently having a nailbiter of a neck-and-neck election for Premier, with polls showing two of the main parties with the same percentage. The Globe and Mail reported previous years with this chart. Only, the BC Liberal party's color is red, NDP is bright orange, and Green is, you know, green. Someone decided purple, salmon, and beige were more palatable. Even weirder, the Conservative party (which doesn't have a BC candidate this year) color is light blue, which is what they used for the Independent parties. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
This isn't so wrong? Aug 1941 is about when Panzergruppe Guderian gets redeployed to participate in the Battle of Kiev, and it's that series of decisions that eventually delays the advance on Moscow by enough to make it impossible to take the Soviet capital before winter. Typhoon stalls out in Oct-Nov 1941 and in hindsight the war was pretty well decided by then. D-Day was a big battle and all, but it doesn't really register for the same reason that the Battle of the Bulge didn't register - neither was going to change the outcome of WW2 either way. It's kind of like Shattered Sword's argument against labeling the Battle of Midway as a "decisive victory": it can't both be that and for Japan to have been hosed from the very beginning by dint of America's industrial might. Most people familiar with the subject accept that even if Nagumo completely destroyed Spruance's fleet in June 1942, that Japan would still have lost anyway under the tonnage of a bajillion Essex-class carriers, so Midway couldn't be "decisive" if Japan's loss was already "preordained" by economic and industrial and logistical forces in place even before the first bomb landed on Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
I guess that people like to believe that battles actually matter so that all the lives lost actually meant something, rather than it just being the necessary churn required before the war reaches its inevitable conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Really the day the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa was the day they lost the war Arguably the war was unwinnable for them from the very start. Their whole economic setup was inherently unstable, predicated on continual conquest and looting of new territories; if they could no longer do that, stagnation and collapse would follow after a while. In the west that was stopped by the English Channel (which also made it quite impossible to knock Britain out of the war; and after the Battle of Britain a diplomatic solution to that side of the conflict would seem rather far-fetched); in the east that necessarily meant conflict with the Soviet Union, which was suicidal (if nothing else it would have been the death of their empire in the long term, even if they made it to the Urals... too much to digest, and they loving sucked at running an empire anyway). Even if you could magic away the eastern front and turn the war after 1940 into a pure endurance match between Germany and the UK, it would IMHO be a question of what happened first: German collapse, unrestrained U-boat warfare pulling the USA into open conflict (because the Americans would never actually let it get to the point where Britain lost), or possibly the UK "Tube Alloys" project bearing fruit. Either way the Third Reich is doomed, the interesting question is how much damage it manages to do on its way down and what Europe looks like afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Norway why? "Tortilla or flatbread" may be misleading. The thing is called "lompe", the main ingredient is potatoes, and it tastes awesome. 'Tis the one true thing to put a hot dog in. Now, some of our countrymen do have their own peculiar hot dog-related perversion; they wrap their hot dogs in waffles instead. This is a fairly localized tradition unknown in most of the country.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
 was originally gonna post this in the anti-food porn thread, but then I noticed the span between two clearly defined points labelled "9-10 years"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
I'm writing a bad chart blog and was wondering if anyone has a quick example of a bad X axis that has time but its non-linear? Currently going through the thread from the start looking for one that doesn't also have poo poo loads else bad about it
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm writing a bad chart blog and was wondering if anyone has a quick example of a bad X axis that has time but its non-linear? Currently going through the thread from the start looking for one that doesn't also have poo poo loads else bad about it  e: didn't catch the end of your post so sorry about all the other bad things about this graph.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Overminty posted:
Yeah this is the one I thought about using but there is just so much wrong i think its overwhelming
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm writing a bad chart blog and was wondering if anyone has a quick example of a bad X axis that has time but its non-linear? Currently going through the thread from the start looking for one that doesn't also have poo poo loads else bad about it  From a couple pages ago. Might not meet the "doesn't also have poo poo loads else bad about it" requirement, though. Edit: Both beaten and not what you're looking for. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
 The x‐axis isn’t the only problem here, but it’s the most notable one.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Else just make your own 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
I just scrolled through 50 pages of the thread and i'm defeated I'll use that one. Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:All the really cutting edge stuff was still pretty close to the border. I guess you can't really get highly qualified professionals and universities to move to bumfuck nowhere just in case there's an invasion. You can get highly qualified professionals to go anywhere when you're the USSR 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Yeah I have an ex whose parents moved to Novosibirsk/Akademgorodok, she showed me pictures and their house is just surrounded by trees lost somewhere in the middle of Siberia.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
But this is a good thing. Less hole => more donut.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
I imagine him presenting this at a meeting of the nation's top Donut Scientists
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
HardDiskD posted:But this is a good thing. Less hole => more donut. Americans are fat
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
At least we now know who makes Benjamin Netanyahu's graphs.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
 I'm the Y axis which is just labeled 0.13 5 different times.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
ranbo das posted:
What in the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:53
|
|