|
The Suez is meaningless! *global economy shuts down when its blocked by a bunch of idiots in a boat*
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The Suez is meaningless! Winning the African theater in WW2 does not hand you free transit to the Indian Ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
It's a pretty small thing, but North Africa was also good terrain for long and gruelling tank trials. The Churchill and Cromwell were sent there to be tested even though they didn't see combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Okay you aren't be serious but to take one example for the sake of the readers who won't understand why this isn't serious; in order for boats to use the Suez to access the open sea they have to sail all the way up the Red Sea, through the Bab-al Mandab Strait (less than 20km wide) and then past the Gulf of Aden. Googlemaps this. Aden is a British naval base at this time. In order for your U-boats to do anything they have to make their way through this gauntlet, not to mention they have to do it twice if you actually want them to get back. It's not happening. In order for it to happen you have to commit an army that was struggling to get supplies from Tobruk to El Alemain to seize the entire Arabian peninsula. And all that to get a handful of u-boats into the Indian ocean to attack... something. The army that now holds Alexandria, Port Said, Beirut and so has their pick of three excellent ports and very short and safe sea supply lines from their home base. They have also coincidentally knocked out gibraltar as a convoy stopover and basing point. Italian merchant attrition was utterly sickening, they had at the point of italies exit from the war about 300'000 tons of shipping left in all of Italy. In the period the desert campaign to that point they lost 900'000 tons of shipping. I feel that massive rate of loss probably had something to do with the fact they couldnt get a supply line running and if they magically control the mediteranean suddenly their rate of loss dissapears.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
I guess case blue doesn't matter either because there's no way the Germans can realistically reach, hold and exploit the Caucasus oil fields
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah but the scale of those two fronts is not comparable at all. If you were going to cover the action with a detail commensurate to the amount of men, materiel, and consequences, you'd spend far more time taking about the eastern front. If you were to make a narrative covering ww2, the war in the Soviet Union probably would never get coverage commensurate with the amount of men and material in the theater because it would result in having to describe the third forlorn hope offensive in Kotluban while almost completely ignoring, say the battle of Gazala. This is not a slight on the Red Army or the significance of the front on which they fought, but a fact of narrative history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
North Africa alone is kind of a red herring. But after taking Tunisia, Allies were able to continue to Sicily and then Italy and finally French south coast. Remember the invasion of Sicily prompted Hitler to move forces destined for Zitadelle to the Italian theater. And later Allies used Italian airfields to bomb Germany. Just because they are different fronts doesn't mean there is no connection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Winning the African theater in WW2 does not hand you free transit to the Indian Ocean. Is anyone saying that? Is there more to the victory in North Africa than simply access to the Indian Ocean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:North Africa alone is kind of a red herring. But after taking Tunisia, Allies were able to continue to Sicily and then Italy and finally French south coast. Remember the invasion of Sicily prompted Hitler to move forces destined for Zitadelle to the Italian theater. And later Allies used Italian airfields to bomb Germany. Just because they are different fronts doesn't mean there is no connection. Well, for example, Torch and Uranus happened at the same time, and Torch put an enormous amount of pressure on the German airlift capacity as they had to hurry as much into Tunisia in response to Torch. Of course, it might've been smarter for Hitler to abandon Africa in response but it would have involved losing DAK as they needed to hold Tunis long enough to evacuate. It would certainly have accelerated Italy's exit from the war, of course. Sort of like how Overlord came about two weeks before Bagration, and the interplay between the fronts prevented any kind of large scale transfer of reserves. Even in the context of 1943-44, the need for a sizable garrison in France with strong mobile reserves severely limited Germany's ability to throw reserves into Ukraine to try to check the Soviet offensives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Torch and Uranus heh
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
For clarity, obviously I agree that the loss of 8th Army and Egypt would have had consequences for the resource burdens and deployments of the Axis (I think anyone claiming that those consequences would have significantly changes anything other than the absence of an Italian campaign, what happens to Mussolini, and the post-war settlement has an uphill struggle). The exam question was 'what impact would the capture of the Suez have had?' and the answer is 'basically none'. If the Suez is gone then the Allies don't have a shipping requirement there anymore so everything just gets pegged to Torch/Overlord. Italy and Germany can't actually do anything with possession of the Suez because it doesn't grant them access to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:For clarity, obviously I agree that the loss of 8th Army and Egypt would have had consequences for the resource burdens and deployments of the Axis (I think anyone claiming that those consequences would have significantly changes anything other than the absence of an Italian campaign, what happens to Mussolini, and the post-war settlement has an uphill struggle). The exam question was 'what impact would the capture of the Suez have had?' and the answer is 'basically none'. If the Suez is gone then the Allies don't have a shipping requirement there anymore so everything just gets pegged to Torch/Overlord. Italy and Germany can't actually do anything with possession of the Suez because it doesn't grant them access to anything. Torch and Tunisia is going to be hugely more difficult if there isn't an 8th Army pushing west from Egypt and because it will become essentially impossible to hold on to Malta, which means the Med is an Axis lake so the Afrika Korps won't have nearly the same level of supply problems because there's nobody left to interdict the convoys to North Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:For clarity, obviously I agree that the loss of 8th Army and Egypt would have had consequences for the resource burdens and deployments of the Axis (I think anyone claiming that those consequences would have significantly changes anything other than the absence of an Italian campaign, what happens to Mussolini, and the post-war settlement has an uphill struggle). The exam question was 'what impact would the capture of the Suez have had?' and the answer is 'basically none'. If the Suez is gone then the Allies don't have a shipping requirement there anymore so everything just gets pegged to Torch/Overlord. Italy and Germany can't actually do anything with possession of the Suez because it doesn't grant them access to anything. You don't think liberating North Africa allows for the Axis to deploy troops in other areas, push their gains, or the political ramifications for such losses as seen by the people of the Middle East under British/French rule?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:heh i aim to please
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
EggsAisle posted:I'm glad you brought it up, because I completely blanked on Les Invalides. Probably I was fixated on lesser-known or out of the way stuff. I haven't seen it, actually- I've only been to Paris once, for a handful of days, back in like 2005, and I didn't care much about history at the time. It's probably one of those basic things I should check off the list. I'd call it like the Louvre of milhist. Played out and touristy? Well yes. Is it dumb to miss it if you get the chance to go? Also yes. fartknocker posted:There was another land front between them in 43-44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9izsVZPDlk Alchenar posted:In order for your U-boats to do anything they have to make their way through this gauntlet, not to mention they have to do it twice if you actually want them to get back. To be fair I don't get the impression that the Third Reich cared too much about U-boat crews getting back. Is there any reality where the possibility of Rommel driving panzers all the way from Libya to Baku isn't ludicrous? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:You don't think liberating North Africa allows for the Axis to deploy troops in other areas, push their gains, or the political ramifications for such losses as seen by the people of the Middle East under British/French rule? Not really. There are definitely going to be some political ramifications but for the most part Empire is rapidly coming to an end after the Allies win the war under the status quo. In terms of the actual conduct of the war as others have said, operations in the Mediterranean and Torch get a fair bit harder for the Allies but this is a periphery theatre anyway. We're already waving a magic wand to give Rommel enough logistical support to overrun Egypt in 1942 (lets assume this is the most feasible scenario), but the Axis logistical challenge isn't just getting shipping across the Mediterranean, it's moving it from the disembarkment point to the frontline. If you are imagining Rommel sitting in Cairo with a map in front of him and the borders of Egypt secure, there are no further objectives for Germany he can meaningfully drive on. Also, 'liberating' North Africa? e: If we really want to dive into this rabbit hole then the most significant consequence is that when Hitler is defeated in 1945, Mussolini probably still in charge of an unoccupied Italy. Stalin maybe pushes a front in that direction and gets an occupation zone, but that's all a long butterfly chain of events from 'what can the Axis do with the Suez canal?' Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Do the Allies and Axis believe or know that North Africa gains Germany nothing as events are unfolding or do they get the benefit of our hindsight?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not really. There are definitely going to be some political ramifications but for the most part Empire is rapidly coming to an end after the Allies win the war under the status quo. In terms of the actual conduct of the war as others have said, operations in the Mediterranean and Torch get a fair bit harder for the Allies but this is a periphery theatre anyway. If you control the Mediterranean, who is opposing the supply effort? You can drop supplies AT CAIRO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Does the Suez Canal not reduce transit costs/time for the food from India that's feeding Britain, or Australian, New Zealand, or Indian troops and material in the European theatre, or depending on the time we're talking about providing for communication to and the support of Singapore, Burma, China, India, and Bangladesh? Edit: also, isn't the idea that these territories are not valuable sort of presupposing that Germany would be defeated? At any point Churchill could choke on a chicken bone and be replaced by Chamberlain 2: Concede harder who might be enticed to accept a deal that restores most of western Europe, territories are bargaining chips and/or Hitler gets hit with a bus and is rep by someone more keen on a lasting third Reich who sues for a similar peace? In that event, the seaway counting Britain to her Empire is a huge bargaining chip. Obviously North Africa was valueless if the allies were going to sack Berlin, but so was Poland, Paris and Oslo. Probably shouldn't have started the war piL fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The Suez is meaningless! piL posted:Does the Suez Canal not reduce transit costs/time for the food from India that's feeding Britain, or Australian, New Zealand, or Indian troops and material in the European theatre, or depending on the time we're talking about providing for communication to and the support of Singapore, Burma, China, India, and Bangladesh? The Brits lost regular use of the Central Mediterranean the minute that Italy entered the war! They were sending supplies the long way around Africa the whole time!!!!!!!! The only convoys going through the Med were the extremely heavily armed ones to Malta!!!!! Stop saying this poo poo!!!!! Polyakov posted:The army that now holds Alexandria, Port Said, Beirut and so has their pick of three excellent ports and very short and safe sea supply lines from their home base. They have also coincidentally knocked out gibraltar as a convoy stopover and basing point. Italian merchant attrition was utterly sickening, they had at the point of italies exit from the war about 300'000 tons of shipping left in all of Italy. In the period the desert campaign to that point they lost 900'000 tons of shipping. I feel that massive rate of loss probably had something to do with the fact they couldnt get a supply line running and if they magically control the mediteranean suddenly their rate of loss dissapears. Taking Northern Egypt does not immediately give control of the Levant. The British had a big port in Basra and a rail line that goes West into Jordan. This and the lovely terrain lets them keep fighting. Similar goes for Southern Egypt, which essentially becomes a big front of nothing valuable that the Axis still have to keep defended. In the meantime, the Axis don't just get extra airplanes for taking Egypt, and the RAF has the entire Levant coast to hassle any attempt to send supply ships directly to Alexandria. I don't see why Gibraltar just vanishes if any of this happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Do the Allies and Axis believe or know that North Africa gains Germany nothing as events are unfolding or do they get the benefit of our hindsight? The Brits would not like it but they viewed it as a matter of "we shouldn't be losing this" because the situation was wildly in their favour. The panicked briefly when Rommel first showed up because a German armoured corps showed up by surprise right when the garrison in Libya was like 2 divisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Do the Allies and Axis believe or know that North Africa gains Germany nothing as events are unfolding or do they get the benefit of our hindsight? There were very important political reasons for Britain to fight tooth and nail for Egypt. If it was lost it seems very difficult to imagine that Churchill doesn't get the sack, realistically they need to be seen defending the Empire, plus they do want to ultimately defeat the Axis powers, so anywhere Britain can fight them piecemeal rather than having to build and risk another expeditionary force in mainland Europe is a valuable theatre. But for us present day people, having a historical narrative that paints second El Alamein and Stalingrad as more or less equivalent events is deceiving to say the least. The Soviet contribution to the defeat of Germany gets minimized in the West all the time, which I think is partly due to a lot of the writing being in German and Russian rather than English, but is also very much a political cold war thing. e: From French opinion polling:  piL posted:Does the Suez Canal not reduce transit costs/time for the food from India that's feeding Britain, or Australian, New Zealand, or Indian troops and material in the European theatre, or depending on the time we're talking about providing for communication to and the support of Singapore, Burma, China, India, and Bangladesh? Yeah Egypt is of profound importance to Britain, her political class in particular. But for the 1939-1943 period the Suez canal is not all that useful for for shipping goods between Europe and Asia, because the Axis naval and air elements have effectively closed the Mediterranean to shipping. So it's very useful for resupplying Greece (before it fell) and Malta (for convoys from Egypt), and maintaining the Royal Navy in Egypt, but troops and goods are going the long way around Africa. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 19:19
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:The Soviet contribution to the defeat of Germany gets minimized in the West all the time, which I think is partly due to a lot of the writing being in German and Russian rather than English, but is also very much a political cold war thing. Don't discount the power of American historiographical mythology working hand in hand with their NATO sales pitch after the Marshall Plan either. Stalin was a gift to the people seeking to benefit from the post-war defence boom, you couldn't ask for a better enemy. The Russian contribution to the end of WW2 was so minimised that it was essentially presented as a 50/50 thing to me in highschool in the 1970's. Sure they got to Berlin first but then everyone agreed to share fairly afterwards. In retrospect, that's a bizarre conclusion, but Stalin was a bad man so who's going to care what he says.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
ACW question: If Lee went for broke on Pickett's charge because he need to win now, and won at Gettysburg, did Lee know about the fortifications surrounding DC? Its not likely he would have been able to capture DC at all because of the fortifications right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Fearless posted:In high school I studied Latin through a tutor with Commentarii de Bello Gallico as the teaching text. Being an even bigger nerd than the previous sentence would suggest, I was rather excited to be learning Latin for the purpose of being able to read Caesar's writings in Caesar's language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah, but you were probably being taught out of something like Wheelock, a textbook designed to teach Latin, not specifically the Latin you need to read Caesar's Gallic War. Commentarii de Bello Gallico is (or at least used to be) almost everybody's first "real" Latin text because it's comparatively clean and straightforward while still being representative of general writing in Latin. The opposite is true of e.g. the Koine of Mark. No, I used Wheelock when I studied Latin in my first year of university and the Cambridge Latin Courses for the actual classes I took in High School as bird courses. My Latin tutor was an ex-RAF lieutenant colonel and university professor who flew Lancasters during the war and taught Latin grammar from memory right while using Caesar as his primary teaching aid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is there any reality where the possibility of Rommel driving panzers all the way from Libya to Baku isn't ludicrous? With the benefit of hindsight, sure. In summer 1942 the British and free French were losing badly and had repeatedly been beaten by the axis forces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:With the benefit of hindsight, sure. In summer 1942 the British and free French were losing badly and had repeatedly been beaten by the axis forces. No there isn't. What's the route he's going to drive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:ACW question: If Lee went for broke on Pickett's charge because he need to win now, and won at Gettysburg, did Lee know about the fortifications surrounding DC? Its not likely he would have been able to capture DC at all because of the fortifications right? I think by the end of 1861 it was pretty clear that the South's road to victory lay in convincing the North that it wasn't worth it any more. Before then they may have had some fantasies that the Yankees would beg for mercy after a single brave volley from a Southron Zouave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Y'all are forgetting ECCE ROMANI, the most genious text to ever exist. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:ACW question: If Lee went for broke on Pickett's charge because he need to win now, and won at Gettysburg, did Lee know about the fortifications surrounding DC? Its not likely he would have been able to capture DC at all because of the fortifications right? Lee well knew about the DC fortifications and its garrison. If he wanted to attack works, he would've marched straight onto DC, through Maryland in the hope of attacking it with Hooker still having to march back in. The goal of the Gettysburg campaign was to try to get a field battle in which he could inflict another Chancellorsville-level disaster on the AoP. The idea being to cause a Bull Run level panic and have something happen. The last thing Lee wanted to do was get in an attritional slog- his naturally aggressive nature chafed against just sitting back, so going deep into Pennsylvania makes sense- a shallower run into Maryland was tried in 1862 after Pope's defeat, but Lee took his time and got stuck in an awkward spot where he had to split up his own army(due to foraging issues), sending Jackson back to take Harpers Ferry and eventually reuniting on the west side of South Mountain and eventually getting trapped in exactly the kind of battle that would make Union material superiority matter most and their command issues matter least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Fearless posted:No, I used Wheelock when I studied Latin in my first year of university and the Cambridge Latin Courses for the actual classes I took in High School as bird courses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:With the benefit of hindsight, sure. In summer 1942 the British and free French were losing badly and had repeatedly been beaten by the axis forces. Auchinleck's worst-case scenario was having to fight on the Nile, not in frickin Iraq
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
SubG posted:And did you feel like that was a barrier that interfered with the rest of your Latin studies? Given that I learned from the tutor first and then continued for a few years afterwards in high school and university beyond that, I believe it was more of a catalyst than a barrier. Fearless fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jul 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Question: what would be the longest periods of service for military issue equipment that you can think of? Ships, uniforms, weapons, what not. I know this question is really hazy, presumably a basic leather shoe didn't change much over centuries. But I'm thinking more of stuff that was designed for military and redesigned over time to fit changing tactical needs. Like nowadays it seems like uniform patterns change every decade or so. Meanwhile my father did conscription in almost the same gear that my grandfather fought in during WW2. There were plenty of updates in the mean time, but for instance assault rifles took a long time to fully replace bolt action rifles and Suomi SMGs in all units of FDF, especially in 2nd line units like coastal batteries. Airplanes appear to evolve the fastest but this also seems uneven. During WW1 fighter aircraft designs went old in a year or even quicker. In WW2 airforces started partially with biplanes and other already obsolete stuff, and ended partially with jet aircraft. Outside world wars development hasn't been quite so hectic. Heavy bombers like B-52 and Tu-95 and cargo planes like Hercules seem immortal, but even in fighter planes there hasn't been all that much change since the 1980's to very lately. Presumably because the cold war ended for a while and there was just no point in funding all those stealth projects and all that, better just upgrade the old stuff. What were the longest lulls in military innovation in land and naval forces in the recent or not so recent centuries?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No there isn't. What's the route he's going to drive? Tripoli to Mersa Matruh is a longer distance than Latakia (Syria) to Yerevan (Armenia), or equidistant from Latakia to Baku, Azerbaijan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Tripoli to Mersa Matruh is a longer distance than Latakia (Syria) to Yerevan (Armenia), or equidistant from Latakia to Baku, Azerbaijan. Have you just taken Germany to war with Turkey? Also you are aware that land goes up as well as along? Also, liberated North Africa?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Y'all are forgetting ECCE ROMANI, the most genious text to ever exist. Fearless posted:Given that I learned from the tutor first and then continued for a few years afterwards in high school and university afterwards, I believe it was more of a catalyst than a barrier. Or at least that's the point I was trying to make replying to CrypticFox. It's been decades since I first learned Koine, it's possible that pedagogical methods have changed since then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Have you just taken Germany to war with Turkey? Also you are aware that land goes up as well as along? You go through Iraq/Iran. What if the control of the Med influences Turkey? Like... you can go around things in real life. I know its a difficult concept to think of hypotheticals as "potential events" and not "everyone does everything exactly the same but Rommel has 10 more tanks"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Question: what would be the longest periods of service for military issue equipment that you can think of? Ships, uniforms, weapons, what not. I know this question is really hazy, presumably a basic leather shoe didn't change much over centuries. But I'm thinking more of stuff that was designed for military and redesigned over time to fit changing tactical needs. Like nowadays it seems like uniform patterns change every decade or so. Meanwhile my father did conscription in almost the same gear that my grandfather fought in during WW2. There were plenty of updates in the mean time, but for instance assault rifles took a long time to fully replace bolt action rifles and Suomi SMGs in all units of FDF, especially in 2nd line units like coastal batteries.  https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-50-cal-fought-for-90-years-without-needing-repair/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 22:25
|
|
