|
MrYenko posted:A friendly reminder that Yak-38 range with any kind of combat loadout is damned near in visual range. And those "naval helicopters" were Ka-25s. They're fine for hunting submarines, but they aren't attack helicopters that can support a landing in any meaningful sense.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
My high-school JROTC class had a lot of those books. Fun to flip through, nice art. Didn't Will Eisner draw those at one point? (I learned enough from JROTC to not join the services.) Also I told my father about the person worried about doing war crimes in a game where they're a mercenary, and he found it hilarious. And also said mercs are useful sometimes, which ... not to open a whole can of worms, but he's not entirely wrong. Just hiring some band of soldiers of fortune to knock over Saddam Hussein's regime would've been cheaper and quicker than Operation Bomb Useless Dirt. Also the conversation eventually turned to HEY GUNS' guys, and Dad laughed at them too, because it was pretty much the same when he was an "advisor" in Vietnam in 1970. Ron Perlman's opening narration of the Fallout games was right, war never changes. It's 95% boredom and 5% terror, and the soldiers fill the downtime by getting drunk and/or doing stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:49
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Cessna posted:This is nowhere near as efficient of a way to move bulk cargo, and requires that port facilities be intact. quote:They could, sure. I can't recall them doing this with large numbers of troops. quote:The Yak-38 had, what, 15 minutes of flight time? (Source.) Cessna posted:I don't see how? Let me restate it: quote:- The USSR spent vast sums of money on a surface fleet whose influence ended at the water's edge. For the cost of a few cruisers they could have built amphibious ships which would greatly expand the capabilities their navy. quote:- While there are certainly no guarantees I believe the interests of the USSR would have been better served if they had invested more in amphibious capability as opposed to buying yet more surface warships or conventional land forces, as they did. Cessna posted:Yes, very well stated. A total of 323 large surface combatants. That certainly sounds impressive, ignoring that a full third of them are missile boats. USN 1989: 17 Supercarriers 4 Battleships (?!) 42 Cruisers 63 Destroyers 104 Frigates 0 Corvettes Total: 229 RN 1989: 3 Helicopter Carriers 0 Cruisers 13 Destroyers 34 Frigates 0 Corvettes Total: 50 MN 1989: 2 (crap) Carriers 0 Cruisers 6 Destroyers 9 'Frigates' 17 Corvettes Total: 34 RCN 1989: 0 Carriers 0 Cruisers 8 Destroyers 11 Destroyer Escorts, which are basically self important Frigates Total: 19 Grand Total: 332 from NATO's Big Four blue water navies, not even going near all of the various other members and their huge missile boat fleets and multiple helicopter carrier, nor adding in the Swedish, South Korean or Japanese fleets which would also have been committed. How on earth is nearly matching the numbers of NATO's blue water combatants solely by counting a Moskit the same as a Nimitz an overinvestment in cruisers? I appreciate everyone has ninja'd me but that took two hours and damned if I'm not posting it. FrangibleCover fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Let's cut to the bottom line - do you think the USSR was better served by the strategy that they pursued? Yes. The US could have stood to read their playbook too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Special in the sense it is in it's own league of stupidity now. Plus there is also the unique flare of class/old and new world religion and politics piled on top unique to the country. I was just being cheeky, but the more I think of it, every society has their own highly sophisticated systems of racism and other class identities that can't really be understood by an outsider but also cannot be catalogued by an insider. Cessna posted:The Soviets saw their navy in similar terms. Adm. Gorshokv said the following in 1970: It seems that Admiral Gorskhov forgot to mention that his budget and available resources were a fraction of what his competitors had. Cessna posted:I believe that the USSR would have had more options available in the global arena if they had greater amphibious capabilities. As such, I think they would have gotten a better "bang for their buck," sea power wise, developing and building more amphibious ships and fewer surface combatants. How do you feel about Russia's current meddlings? They seem to have plenty of bang for the buck with their surface fleet and no need for amphibious capabilities. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
It's fine, I mean an outsider could understand it but goddamn you are going to have to invest a lot of time both in research and staring blankly at the wall muttering 'what in the gently caress?'. I imagine it is the same process for any country. Also is that Peterloo movie worth it or not lenoon?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:So they require amphibious ships, better ships, to do something that they weren't doing and didn't really want to do. The USSR was not a monolithic entity. Admiral Gorshkov, arguably the architect of the Cold War Soviet Navy, regularly pressed for more amphibious capabilities. This is described in a couple of places in this paper, and I tend to believe it. So, yes, the USSR didn't go in that direction, but when they guy who built their navy asks for it, I tend to give those words some weight. (Edit: He also does this in Seapower and the State, but I'm not going to dig my copy out of my garage right now, sorry.) FrangibleCover posted:The Yak-38 was a lovely aircraft and a disasterous fighter but if all you asked of it was to take off with some rockets, fly to the shore at sea level, gently caress someone up and go home it was capable of doing that. I wouldn't want to trust my fate to air support from Yak-38s. FrangibleCover posted:At the moment I'm pretty sure you just want them to do things more like the Americans because the American Way is the Right Way. I've never said that, and please don't try to portray me as some sort of rah-rah USA nationalist; I most assuredly am not one. That's uncalled for. I'll say it YET AGAIN. I think the USSR would have been better served building more amphibious ships and less cruisers. FrangibleCover posted:A total of 323 large surface combatants. That certainly sounds impressive, ignoring that a full third of them are missile boats. My point is not, and never has been, that the USSR should try to achieve some sort of parity with the USN and NATO's navies. Rather, that instead of building cruisers, maybe a few amphibious landing craft would have been useful. I've repeated this too many times. At this point, well, if you disagree, that's fine, but I see no point in going back and forth over this. Have a good night! Cessna fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Yes. The US could have stood to read their playbook too. Fair enough. Have a good night!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:My high-school JROTC class had a lot of those books. Fun to flip through, nice art. Didn't Will Eisner draw those at one point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
You keep saying that they'd have been better served by building more amphibious landing capabilities, but merely repeating a weak argument over and over doesn't make it a strong argument. The assertion that you absolutely need a large amount of landing craft to support allied nations and provide humanitarian aid is simply not borne out by the many, many examples of the same capacity being provided by conventional shipping and strategic airlift, and you've really not managed to provide any concrete examples of where Soviet amphibious power would be useful except in the one place they actually did have half their amphibious capability. The way you've described the utility of amphibious forces, they seem almost like a solution looking for a problem: they're absolutely, critically, necessary for all those times you want to launch an operation into a country with a shoreline but no useful harbours or airports, yet at the same an operation small enough that you don't need the habours and airports for continued operation? That's an exceedingly marginal benefit to give up surface combatants in the Atlantic for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:The assertion that you absolutely need a large amount of landing craft to support allied nations and provide humanitarian aid An assertion I did not make. LatwPIAT posted:is simply not borne out by the many, many examples of the same capacity being provided by conventional shipping and strategic airlift, Is it possible that there were missed opportunities that they could taken advantage of? LatwPIAT posted:and you've really not managed to provide any concrete examples of where Soviet amphibious power would be useful except in the one place they actually did have half their amphibious capability. If amphibious power is not useful, why did the architect of the Soviet Navy press for it? Out of curiosity, why the hostility? I've spoken you elsewhere and have always found you to be someone I enjoy interacting with. Now you seem to be determined to prove me WRONG over a matter of opinion. What gives? PM me if you prefer...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:During the ACW, how aggressive was the Union draft if you were out of the major states? Would a healthy man in Oregon or Washington territory have to enlist, or were the far flung regions voluntary? unsure if anyone answered this during a zillion posts about hypothetical red marines but Theoretically yes, practically, probably not. Draft offices were supposed to establish a census in every town with a list of eligible men, but many towns were not terribly diligent about doing this as it was local people doing it and they weren't very incentivized to be be thorough. Then, even if you were drafted, if you didn't report, someone had to come get you, and there wasn't exactly an abundance of manpower standing by to round up draft dodgers. It was easier in bigger cities obviously, but as a practical matter, if you lived in a remote area and didn't want to serve, you really didn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Out of curiosity, why the hostility? I've spoken you elsewhere and have always found you to be someone I enjoy interacting with. Now you seem to be determined to prove me WRONG over a matter of opinion. What gives? PM me if you prefer... Thank you! I've found your posts on lots of stuff like Nazi uniforms very interesting. It might just be because I missed like two days of medication in a row, but the initial spark of contention was that I'd spent a bit of time as an amateur historian looking at two theatres of operation in specific: the planned defence of Norway (which I wrote a snipped about in response to your comment about fleets-in-being) and the potential WaPa operations in the Baltics against Sweden and Denmark. This made your comments about the Soviet amphibious naval capabilities seem absurd at best, and after that it was about picking at the facts and getting increasingly agitated that you would not see what I felt was reason and that you presented arguments I felt lacked in substance. And like... I guess it's natural that you'd draw on your experience with being part of the US armed forces when speaking on military matters, and I don't really think you're a rah-rah nationalist, but a lot of your arguments regarding (Cold War) military equipment often seem to have an element of "this is the way the US does it, this example of doing it differently was a really dumb idea." Which is not wrong most of the time, but the combination of "look at the way the US does it" and "people not doing this are doing it wrong" can occasionally read as being motivated by dogma moreso than rational assessment, especially in situations where there's a lot of room to disagree. Especially with regards to Soviet military equipment and doctrine, where your voice is backed by a choir of 80 years of propaganda. I feel kind of bad for painting you with that brush, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:
I can’t give you a date but back at least to the beginnings of the slave trade. By the 17th century you have casta paintings that break down every conceivable racial mix and gives it an name. What is it if you mix a half-native half-octoroon with a mestizo? They have a painting for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I was just being cheeky, but the more I think of it, every society has their own highly sophisticated systems of racism and other class identities that can't really be understood by an outsider but also cannot be catalogued by an insider. I strongly disagree with this. Any system is susceptible to study and analysis. poo poo gets complex and there are a lot of nuances that you need to stern yourself in the culture to get, but it’s not impenetrable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Thank you! I've found your posts on lots of stuff like Nazi uniforms very interesting. Thanks! LatwPIAT posted:It might just be because I missed like two days of medication in a row, but the initial spark of contention was that I'd spent a bit of time as an amateur historian looking at two theatres of operation in specific: the planned defence of Norway (which I wrote a snipped about in response to your comment about fleets-in-being) and the potential WaPa operations in the Baltics against Sweden and Denmark. This made your comments about the Soviet amphibious naval capabilities seem absurd at best, and after that it was about picking at the facts and getting increasingly agitated that you would not see what I felt was reason and that you presented arguments I felt lacked in substance. Sorry, I promise I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I also wasn't really thinking in terms of Scandinavia or the Baltic. The USSR put surface ships all over the globe - I was thinking further afield, places like the Middle East, Cuba, the Pacific rim, etc. They could have been a real thorn in the West's side there... LatwPIAT posted:And like... I guess it's natural that you'd draw on your experience with being part of the US armed forces when speaking on military matters, and I don't really think you're a rah-rah nationalist, but a lot of your arguments regarding (Cold War) military equipment often seem to have an element of "this is the way the US does it, this example of doing it differently was a really dumb idea." Which is not wrong most of the time, but the combination of "look at the way the US does it" and "people not doing this are doing it wrong" can occasionally read as being motivated by dogma moreso than rational assessment, especially in situations where there's a lot of room to disagree. Especially with regards to Soviet military equipment and doctrine, where your voice is backed by a choir of 80 years of propaganda. Oh, no! I assure you, that was NOT my intent there. I think Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War was top-notch, especially considering their limitations compared to the West. We studied every scrap of info we could get on their methodology. I didn't always agree with their approach, but I certainly respected it. Personally I got to spend some time restoring a captured former-Soviet BMP-1 - it was fascinating to compare their approach to war on a small-scale level. It was very different from US/NATO stuff, but I could certainly understand why they did things the way they did, and in some ways their methodology was better than that of the West. On a higher level if you compare their plans (the ones revealed to the public, anyway) regarding how a war in the classic "Invade West Germany / WWIII" scenario would have gone down I think those of the USSR make those of the West look downright amateur. I have great respect for their pragmatic approach to warfare in WWII/the GPW, and their Cold War plans - again, from what I've seen - were excellent applications of the lessons learned there. So when I come across something I see as a bit of a blind spot it makes me wonder - after all, the pieces were certainly there. They were quite good at amphibious warfare in the Black Sea in WWII. Their top Admiral (Gorshkov) was personally involved in this, and pushed for more amphibious capability later in his career. They studied the USA's war in the Pacific in their military academies. They built a big surface navy above and beyond their submarine fleet and used it to good effect. They had a very pragmatic, practical view of naval operations. They certainly understood how to deploy troops overseas when the situation called for it. So, why not take a more aggressive approach to amphibious operations? I understand that there were probably political considerations at work here, but it seems like an odd gap, a missed opportunity. I'm not saying that they're wrong or that the USA was right, I'm more surprised at why they didn't take what were, to my eyes, obvious steps. Clearly there's something there... LatwPIAT posted:I feel kind of bad for painting you with that brush, sorry. No worries, thanks for responding! Cessna fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
I think it's useful for the discussion to look at what capabilities specialized amphibious warfare ships like the USS Tarawa actually offer. In a sense, they're basically baby carriers: They can carry a ton of helicopters (35 on the Tarawa) plus a handful of aircraft, a significant contingent of troops (2000+), plus a good number of landing ships and vehicles. In the US experience, this places them in something of a swiss army knife role. While they're not going to kick in any doors by themselves, a specialized amphibious assault ship is capable of rapidly planting a good-sized fighting contingent in a pretty wide range of places, or at least threatening to put them there. In addition, the fleet of helicopters can be extremely useful in anti-submarine warfare, as well as in search and rescue and the delivery of humanitarian aid to areas struck by natural disasters where airports and harbors are either overloaded or damaged. So for the US and from Cessna's perspective they're very useful ships, and have seen service responding to the 1984 Beirut bombing and 2000 USS Cole bombing, participating in peacekeeping efforts in Somalia and Yugoslavia, the evacuation of civilians from conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone, disaster relief in Bangladesh and Haiti, and many other operations—certainly more active than most other warships. Now, whether the Soviets could have benefited from a specialized amphibious assault ship is a hard thing to say. In a potential WWIII scenario a Tarawa-esque equivalent probably would have been most useful as an ASW platform rather than anything requiring specialized amphibious operations, and in a peacetime role, while I'm sure the Soviets would have been happy to have a convenient platform for disaster relief, humanitarian operations, and a response or deterrent for US-backed coups in friendly countries, it's also an open question how much utility they would have really gotten out of such a vessel, especially since it would mean sending Soviet fleets far further abroad than I'm sure any Soviet admiral would have been comfortable with. so in the end, amphibious warfare ships are a land of contrasts, thank you Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
I think we can all agree: all militaries should solely use fleets of ekranoplans for their amphibious transport. Good night and god bless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Cessna posted:why the hostility? I'm sorry too. I'm not particularly good at drawing the line between a passionate defence of my position and getting nasty. I agree with you about Soviet planning on the German front and I think the way they planned to use their naval forces was very much tied into the same sort of clockwork professionalism they had on land. Force A will go to point X at time I, which it will take with 34.83% losses and then at time J Force B will pass through them and take Point Y supported by the necessary 749 artillery shells. Maybe that did make them too rigid, but I think it also made them formidable in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Yes I feel (not being expert on the field) that soviets saw that priorizing their capability to influence/pressure happenings nearby took much more presence over putting resources for ”possible” gains on influencing scenarios that depended on amphibious ops- and this coming from a Finn my family experienced the prioritization of influencing neighboring nations not part of WP. Because lacking the hypothetical chance to influence Gambia for +1 food in video game terms vs. Being able to make sure chechoslovakia/poland/estonia (who think they are a country, not part of USSR) stays in line? One is WAY higher in terms of priority than the other. So expending resources on possible gains when you have constant ongoing crisis on your back yard feels.. optimistic? Gambleyish? You have to remember that cold war US didnt have a constant problem of States trying to call it quits and join Canada/declare independence. For USSR/WP this was a problem, especially when glasnost rolled about. USSR was never a federation of the willing but federation of the forced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:I think we can all agree: all militaries should solely use fleets of ekranoplans for their amphibious transport. But Ekranoplans aren't ships, they're aircraft! Therefore what you mean to say is that all militaries should solely use Ekranoplans for airborne transport, which means that all Airborne troops should be retasked in support of Marines. I'm sure that will be a popular policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Thanks! To be honest I'm just here to talk about tanks and other AFVs. I've learned how to tell the difference between every T-72 model operated by East Germany, I might as well use it for something. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the Russians attempted to obtain two Mistral class LHDs, which ended up being bought by Egypt at-cost after the French decided hey maybe it's not the best idea to sell amphibs to the country that just went full Anschluss and started a civil war in Ukraine. So at a minimum it appears that at least up until 2014, Russian naval planners considered the lack of amphibious capabilities to be something that needed to be worked on. Similarly the PLAN's 6 Type 071 LPDs and 3 Type 075 LHDs are, IMO, a far more important development than their carrier program. Yes it's very exciting to have a couple squadrons of real fighters on a boat like America and France, but being able to send in a MEU with armor is something that shows you're a real world power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It's fine, I mean an outsider could understand it but goddamn you are going to have to invest a lot of time both in research and staring blankly at the wall muttering 'what in the gently caress?'. I imagine it is the same process for any country. Yeah I thought it was pretty cracking. Sad as all hell, and a really excellent propaganda movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Was it the previous thread or the Cold War thread where someone ran the numbers on why having tiny fixed-wing air wings on babby carriers is more or less a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
Could the us navy's army''s airforce operate something like the a4 of one of the baby carriers
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 11th November 1918 posted:The Battalion passed the starting just outside BEAURAIN at 0730 hours and arrived in CAUDRY at about 1100 hours. While on the march it was unofficially announced that the armistice had been signed and hostilities would cease at 1100 hours. It seemed too good to be true and everyone was anxious to see it in writing. In the afternoon the report of the armistice was officially confirmed. Contrary to expectation the news was very quietly received nothing more desperate than the firing of rockets, S.O.S. and very lights took place. The appendix doesn't have the mentioned order, but there is the movement order for today. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 11:23
|
|
lenoon posted:Yeah I thought it was pretty cracking. Sad as all hell, and a really excellent propaganda movie. I'll give it a go then, if it seems to have escaped the taint of our weird modern politics.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
Today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day after a dude took a train and everybody loving lost their minds  
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:In short the UK has it's own special brand of racism that'd take years to untangle and really understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:39
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day after a dude took a train and everybody loving lost their minds I'm not a big fan of historical dramas where a lot of the action is bottle episodes in certain rooms but drat Fall Of The Eagles really captured some of the weirdness with that whole thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Also the conversation eventually turned to HEY GUNS' guys, and Dad laughed at them too, because it was pretty much the same when he was an "advisor" in Vietnam in 1970. Ron Perlman's opening narration of the Fallout games was right, war never changes. It's 95% boredom and 5% terror, and the soldiers fill the downtime by getting drunk and/or doing stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can’t give you a date but back at least to the beginnings of the slave trade. By the 17th century you have casta paintings that break down every conceivable racial mix and gives it an name. What is it if you mix a half-native half-octoroon with a mestizo? They have a painting for that. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:It seems like in the US they just sort you by the Pantone shade of your skin when you get off the boat. One of my old roommates was an Indian woman who was sort of a medium caramel color and she spoke exactly like an upper-class Brit--sometimes she was spoken to by Hispanic people as though she were one of them, and sometimes her white colleagues would draw her aside and tell her what they really thought of The Blacks (implying that she could be trusted to hear the racism, that she was one of them). I mean, this is pretty much exactly where the Brown Paper Bag Test came from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:It seems like in the US they just sort you by the Pantone shade of your skin when you get off the boat. One of my old roommates was an Indian woman who was sort of a medium caramel color and she spoke exactly like an upper-class Brit--sometimes she was spoken to by Hispanic people as though she were one of them, and sometimes her white colleagues would draw her aside and tell her what they really thought of The Blacks (implying that she could be trusted to hear the racism, that she was one of them). To be fair racism between British Asians and British black people is also A Thing (as is tension between Afro-Caribbean and African-African communities).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Yeah, most famously the M16 maintenance manual. I like how, after the page describing how to punch and flail at your rifle in case of a jam, and assuring you that you will need to have this procedure down to second nature (implying that this will happen a lot), a stern, fatherly officer-type is assuring you that this here is the finest rifle ever made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To be fair racism between British Asians and British black people is also A Thing (as is tension between Afro-Caribbean and African-African communities). Yeah and islamaphobic racism is really big amongst Chinese folk I'm sorry to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Yeah, most famously the M16 maintenance manual.  That is not how you remove hose!    A crime in several US states!  Awkwardly mixing metaphors? M16-chan canonically queer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
That krrc entry where the guy killed 3 germans in a cellar with an axe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 14:40
|
|
