|
feedmegin posted:This is pretty hard to do, btw, and you might get to pay an exit tax as well. There was a good reddit post about someone who became stateless. Basically you can revoke your citizenship and then lie about having another one (you have to claim to hold another citizenship before most countries will let you revoke). It's not a good idea.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Also if nothing else the frontline on the eastern front during much of the war is significantly further away from Germany (and most of poland) than eastern england. The front line moves throughout the war, but if you're close to it you're close enough to be counter attacked by the Luftwaffe. Bases in England are covered by Radar, huge fighter wings multiple, redundant bases, and supplied by an intact logistic grid. By comparison think of the supply effort it would take to keep a few hundred heavy bombers supplied to put any weight of bombs into Germany. The 8th air force was sending 3000 planes a mission up eventually, and even that didn't have the knock out effect interwar air power strategists predicted. Also while some of the soviet planes did technically have the capability to reach far into Germany, at longer ranges bomb loads are significantly reduced, as well is altitude. This is a little outside your question but this video was rather eye opening for me in comparing bomb-load/range/altitude, and how much of a trade off it all was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQj2qfpXSg
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Currently the Army has what's called a Casualty Notification Officer and a Casualty Assistance Officer. These roles are extra duty positions that are usually filled by a different officer each month. I know a few people who've done a stint. It's very emotionally draining work. Apparently the roughest is when you knock and their spouse isn't there. You have to give it to their next of kin, so if an aunt or a friend opens the door, they have to call the spouse to rush back. The officer isn't allowed to tell other people that there was a death, so you have people tearfully begging the officer to tell them what happened and they have to stoically stand there and wait for the wife/husband/parent to get there so they can formally give notice. Then the officer can cry in their car afterwards. Edit: Social media has also made it rough, as you're not allowed to tell anyone until the official Casualty Officer has informed them. So if you're friends with people's family on social media, and they die, their family might be asking you 'Hey So and so never chatted with us today... is everything alright?' and you can't tell them anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
Loezi posted:Thanks for all the replies, super interesting stuff! This is an interesting topic, and leads into another one which is dog tags (or identification in general). You can't easily figure out who died in large armies if you don't have ways of identifying bodies. Identification tags seem to me at least to be linked to mass mobilization of citizen or professional armies. So the Romans had a thing called a signaculum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaculum, but after that I'm not aware of anything similar until the 19th century. When you're dealing with small professional regiments who are career soldiers, its probably easier to keep track of who is in the regiment, and also there is less of a chance anyone outside the regiment cares if they die. Also regiments tend to have distinctive uniforms and fight together so bodies will be grouped. If they did have an identification system I'm not aware what it is. I'm sure the crusaders had a way to identify their bodies, even if it was informal, given that they were mixed forces far from home. I don't believe there were official dogtags in the ACW, but people used lots of informal ways to identify themselves. After that you're firmly in the period of mass mobilization for wars, where people aren't expecting to soldier as a career, and are mashed together in giant units and giant battles where it is no longer practical to just recognize bodies. Also weapons become more lethal so bodies are more likely to be mangled. Part of it also is wanting to make sure if you die that you get put down as killed in action, and not a deserter. If your dead body is there with a tag on it, no one can say you ran away, and depending on the society could keep your family from suffering consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Which Afghanistan? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:So with all that in mind, my question really is, "In contrast with most other major powers, why did the US rely on a centralized design bureau to develop most of its AFVs during World War II?" That is what I want to know. So this isn't the only answer, but a big part of it is logistics. If US industry came out with a new fighter, or a USSR design bureau came out with a cool new tank, they could just slot that into their organization. However every tank in the US had to fit in a certain kind of rail car, then onto a certain type of ship, then onto a certain landing craft, then over certain types of bridges, etc. All those things had been decided way in advance, so even if someone came up with a cool new tank it would be a waste of time if it didn't slot into the entire existing planning. That's one reason why you see lots of applique poo poo welded to the front of Sherman's, but almost never to the sides. Because the side clearances were set in stone and could not be altered. So I'm sure there were some other reasons, but the logistics is one of the reasons for the central design, and also for the resistance to new designs. Now you can theoretically set out strict requirements and get civilian companies to compete, but there wasn't exactly a lot of time, and they had to get it right the first time. So it seemed better to just decide what they wanted and tell people to make it. It was a different war, but Moltke famously responded to the Kaiser's meddling in 1914 Deployments with: quote:“Your Majesty, it cannot be done. The deployment of millions cannot be improvised. If Your Majesty insists on leading the whole army to the east it will not be an army ready for battle but a disorganized mob of armed men with no arrangements for supply. Those arrangements took a whole year of intricate labor to complete and once settled, it cannot be altered.” And I feel like that's a good description of the US armored development policy. The numbers and types of tanks that would hit the beaches in 1944 were all decided upon years earlier, and there was not time to do lengthy trials between competing models. There were lots of competing heavy/medium tanks made, but few made it beyond prototypes or small production. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know, it's not like you can't give out the required specs to independent design bureaus. All US Navy ships have to fit through Panama canal, it doesn't mean that only a US Navy engineer can figure it out. Pretty sure US Navy ships were centrally designed too though. At least destroyers and up. I know less about naval stuff, but a cursory reading shows the requirements and basic designs were all done in house.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:you end up standing in a field next to Ferdinand Porsche looking at a 65 ton tank that doesn't have a machinegun. It looks hella cool though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Apparently the German train timetable nerds were insulted by von Moltkes insinuation that the couldn't work out new plans on the fly lol I mean maybe they could. I think the WW2 Germany Army is a good point of comparison for a force that improvises and does almost everything by the seat of its pants on a strategic scale. When it works it works, when it doesn't work it really doesn't work. I wonder who would win between the two with similar equipment. My money is on the Imperial Germans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Cessna posted:My dude, Sherman hull applique armor reinforcements were added, then standardized: I probably should have been more specific. I meant things like armor skirts. The applique armor patches don't really increase the width. Armour skirts would have helped a lot during the bocage portion of normandy due to how common panzerfausts were. They were willing to weld dozers and spikes on the front of Shermans, but anything substantial on the sides was not allowed unless it was removeable. Hence the logs and such. You also see concrete armour but it usually doesn't stick out further than the sand guards.  The applique armor didn't really increase the profile, just the weight, so it was fine. You're obviously correct that the later Shermans were wider, up until then though every variant had essentially a 105 inch width limit. http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html The Jumbo was a little wider but I guess they made allowances as it was a special variant. There are some exceptions, but outside of temporary attachments like logs, most of the improvised armour on shermans is completely flat and doesn't extend over the tracks at all. Everything I have read has indicated that's for clearance reasons. Supposedly officers would turn a blind eye to stuff on the front, but were extremely strict about anything on the side. Edit: I don't know what changed that convinced them to widen the sherman for the HVSS version. Maybe after a while they just decided to accept the drawbacks and sacrifice transportability for a more capable vehicle. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It's not even arrogance really, there was plenty of winter gear in the rear, the problem was their logistical capacity was so overstretched that bringing it up meant giving up things like fuel and ammunition, which would have been more immediately fatal. Yeah, they (german army) did an analysis of how far they could supply an army past the railhead. Trucks and Horses need to carry fodder and fuel which cuts into how much they can carry. After a certain point you get diminishing returns (I think it was like 400 miles) when more than half of a wagon or truck's capacity is wasted just getting it to the front. In 1941 they were far past this point and as you say they were barely getting food and ammo and gasoline, let alone niceties like coats. They knew all this going unto the USSR but assumed once they outran their supplies the soviets would no longer be offering serious resistance, and might have even surrendered. Obviously they were wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I have to wonder if they underestimated how thoroughly the Soviets would work to deny supplies. If an army was advancing through the 1940s US, for example, they'd have every reason to expect to find ready supplies of fuel, food, clothing, and other supplies from both military and civilian sources unless the retreating defenders were very thorough in blowing it all up. From everything I've read, the Soviets were, in fact, very thorough most of the time, but I wonder if the Germans thought they'd be able to support on plunder more than they actually were. They didn't fully expect this, as far as I know there really was no plan. The discussion basically went, Operations Guy: "Ok It will take us 12 weeks to get to moscow and crush the soviet union" Logistics Guy: "We only have enough supplies for 8 weeks." Operations Guy: "Ok We'll do it in 8, no worries." Logistics Guy: "What if you can't?" Operations Guy: "Haha, France only took 6 weeks! And Communists are all cowards." And there was just no plan beyond that. They didn't think they needed to capture supplies on a large scale because the war would be over before that could happen. It was assumed it would be easier than France.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Don't forget to watch Patlabor! Armor Hunter Mellowlink!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Link doesn’t work for me, what does it show? Probably the totally independent and free Empire of (Great) Manchuria, which willingly decided to become part of the glorious greater east asian co-prosperity sphere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Beyond logistics, it's not like the Chinese front was closed. How many troops would be needed to be diverted to make a meaningful difference against the Soviet Union? The Ichi-Go offensive used half a million and still didn't knock China out of the war. If they're sending several hundred thousand of their best troops to the soviet union instead, there's a chance the nationalists make some real gains.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Does anyone know if that new Samurai documentary on Netflix is any good? I liked it! It starts off with 5 minutes about how Katana are cool, and then it goes "BUT GUNS ARE BETTER" Also how Samurai would betray each other at the drop of a hat. It doesn't fall into typical "Last Samurai" samurai honor trope stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:And speaking of the Chinese front in the Pacific War, what was the main impediment to a peace settlement for the Japanese in China? Did the Japanese government think victory was possible? Were the Chinese refusing to come to the table? Were junior IJA officers assassinating any government official opposing the war? China had spent the last 100 years losing wars and trading off pieces of itself for peace. Chiang Kai Shek and the KMT's entire raison d'etre was to stop that process. They would have rather died choking on their own blood (and most of them did) rather than sign one more unequal peace treaty. There was no way they were going to sign a peace treaty while the IJA was occupying the most populous and valuable parts of the country. Edit: And the IJA had also lost hundreds of thousands of troops taking that territory, so it was in no way politically viable to just give it back and walk away.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Basically the Kwantung Army was a rogue army and the GHQ was unwilling to formally cut them off. Was there ever any actual consideration of peace terms by the KMT? Obviously Chiang had to be dragged into the conflict at literal gunpoint, but after that I've never read of any actual negotiations that got beyond initial unrealistic offers. Edit: Answering my own questions here, but the KMT did actually accept one proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trautmann_mediation But as you say by the time they accepted it the Japanese didn't want to honor it anymore and gave a counter offer that was way worse, and the KMT couldn't accept it. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Supposing Japan accepted the first Trautmann proposal and made peace with China, is there any way to know when Japan would have gone after the Soviet Union? Did they have a date they thought they'd be ready by before the Marco Polo Bridge Incident? Of course whatever they had planned wouldn't have necessarily come to pass since so much of their foreign policy seems to have been forced upon them by the Kwantung Army, so from a counter factual perspective you can posit a war starting at almost any time. And once Chiang Kai Shek thinks the CCP have been dealt with he'll probably look for any opportunity to reconquer Manchuria, especially if the Japanese are fighting the Soviets. They did go after the soviet union two years later and got their asses handed to them at Khalkhin Gol in 1939.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:They were terrified of the Soviet Union, more so than wanting anything from it, is the impression I get. Having Zhukov show up with 500 tanks does make an impression yes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The IJA had their own in the Ki-43. I think it would be strange considering the Flying Tigers operated in China and the ROC had their own aircraft for the IJA to not have had significant air combat experience. Well its important to consider the date this would be happening. If the KMT took a deal after shanghai, it would be 1937. The Flying Tigers would never have existed. If there war in China isn't raging, there isn't any real situation where the IJA would get combat flight experience. If the China front isn't closed, then I don't see how they could attack the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:I’ve served in units with toxic leadership and yea, it’s effective in some ways at building camaraderie in opposition to the leader, but it does not make a healthy unit. Units like this I served in were highly skilled, because they had to be, but were far more vulnerable to critically imploding and were more gun shy in fear of being targeted by that toxic personality. Also people might have friends or family flying in to visit, or have a vacation planned with the kids. Once you are out of basic training a military unit in garrison is a lot more like a regular job than people think. People have kids, spouses, responsibilities outside of the military and messing with that is really bad for morale.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Has to be mentioned that Stukas were big slow targets even in like, 1940. The pace of aircraft development during WWII left designs like the Stuka in the dust. The FW 190 wasn't the best fighter-bomber, but it could dive, drop a bomb, and zoom back up to a reasonably safe altitude, or just zip away at high speed. Stukas basically could only dive to the dirt and scurry away slowly. Stuka's did have one trick which was their auto dive recovery. (I might have even read about it in this thread, if so apologies for stealing your thunder). You basically dove straight down at the target and dropped the bomb, at which point the plane automatically pulled up at 6+ Gs. It was automatic because this would usually cause the pilot to pass out. The plane was also tough enough to handle this process. That's why they were so accurate, and part of the shock value (at least early on) since they could come screaming down with the sun behind them before you realized they were there. So not only did they perform well unopposed, they performed particularly well, since their trajectory allowed them to line up a bomb onto a small target with some degree of accuracy. This is something a FW-190 wouldn't be able to. This design left a lot of tradeoffs as stated, to get this peak divebomber performance. Edit: Also I suspect the advances in aerial rocketry in some ways invalidated the need for super accurate land attack divebombers. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:With the plane in a very steep dive like that, how do you get the bomb to separate cleanly? Or were they mounted on pylons rather than in a bomb bay? There is an arm that yeets it out under you.  The bomb release kicked the bomb out to the end of the arms, dropped it, and then the plane automatically pulls up as you pass out. Presumably that is enough space that the wind won't knock it back into the plane or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
From what I know the real killer was Allied Air superiority. There was no real way to engineer themselves out of that one. Also AA got better. At the start of the war, they're only going to be shot at by machine guns. Autocannons weren't that prevalent in mobile formations, and something like a 3 inch gun isn't going to be found near the front in any mount that can competently engage them. Machine gun caliber AA is more retaliatory than anything else. Against something like a dive bomber, it will likely have already released its bomb by the time you can engage it. By 1943, not only are there enemy fighters, there are also way more 20mm and 40mm autocannons along the front line. Those have the ability to engage an attack plane at several thousand feet, making it so they can't just leisurely line up a bomb run at altitude safely. That makes them more vulnerable, and less effective in their role.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Counterpoint: The question was whether the FW-190 was good at CAS, and arguably none of those aircraft were "Good" at CAS. High speed fighter aircraft had significant difficulties attacking even stationary targets with rockets and bombs, particularly in comparison to dedicated dive bombers like the Ju-87 or A-36, or specialized attackers like the Il-2. The reason why they were used was because dedicated CAS aircraft are typically hilariously vulnerable to both enemy aircraft and AAA, particularly when diving, whereas fighter-bombers can simply drop their bombs and/or strafe some vehicles/infantry and GTFO. Allied fighters on the western front were also operating during a period of time where they weren't really needed for escort or air cover after ~June 1944, so many more of them could be used for CAS simply because they were available. Also the conversion of some planes to fighter bombers was not as successful as we might think. The P-51 gets brought up, but it was extremely vulnerable to ground fire due to the way its radiator was set up. In WWII, more mustangs were lost doing CAS than were lost in aerial combat. It was used heavily for CAS in the Korean war and its flaws became extremely apparent there as well. The P47 was apparently way better though and had something like 1/3rd the loss rates on ground missions that the P-51 did. However they didn't have any left for use in Korea. Pilots in the Korean war were apparently extremely upset at being given P51s instead of P47s. Just because a plane was used heavily in a role doesn't mean it was a good fit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
So they'd use IL-2s to go after convoys or units in transit, or broadly against an enemy advance rather than get called in to deal with a pesky tank or bunker?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
I just find it hard to believe that pilots were commonly able to permanently knock out anything past a BT-7 using 37mm. I get that the tops of tanks are thin, but unless you're coming in like a dive bomber, your shots are going to be at a weird angle. Even then you basically have to hit the top of the turret (small) or engine deck. Even then unless it starts a fire, it probably is not going to disable the tank long term (though it might kill crew). Especially if it's happening behind the frontline and they can just fix it. Actually, it's not even clear the 37mm on a Stuka would be able to reliably penetrate the top armor on a KV (at a realistic angle). Ensign probably knows. Supposedly the MK 101 could, but that wasn't used on Stukas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_101_cannon SerCypher fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:According to RAPID FIRE by Anthony G. Williams - Using APCR The only way they're hitting a tank at 100m is if they're in the middle of a Kamikaze attack. The article Ensign posted is good because it seems yes, they can penetrate. However even when the tank isn't moving and they're not getting shot at. The 101 was apparently more accurate than the 37mm, and even then they only got a 17% accuracy rate. So obviously something you'd want to watch out for if you're in a tank, but not as scary as it might seem. SerCypher fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Do... do I need to point at that the penetration value is just that and not some sort of data point to attribute all stukas performing dives from 100m for sick-nasty shots into open cupolas? No, I just think its a funny distance to think about in terms of aerial attacks. The tests Ensign linked from his blog show they can indeed pen 50+ MM of armor at 500 Meters if they get lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:How does the damage of a modern ASM compare to a kamikaze with a bomb attached planting itself in the side of a ship? It really depends. ASM's on the high end can get pretty absurd. Something like the Granit that the Kirov's carried had a ~1500ish pound warhead, and would be going much faster than a kamikaze. I feel like a good baseline is the Exocet, which has a ~300ish pound warhead. Two of them were fired at the frigate USS Stark, and it was able to make repairs and steam home under its own power. That seems to be the case for other Exocet strikes. Normally they seem to blast big chunks out of the superstructure, and kill lots of people, but they don't seem to have the 'oomph' to take out a ship. It's hard to know though since there just haven't been that many missile strikes to look at. Compare to the dozens and dozens of kamikaze victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_damaged_by_kamikaze_attack In the end for both it seems to come down to how good the damage control is, and how lucky the strike is at causing damage control issues (fire/flooding). There are so many factors that it's hard to say, but a kamikaze and an Exocet are firmly in the category of "If you get hit by an ASM or a Kamikaze, you will need prompt and competent damage control to keep the ship under power/afloat". Maybe someone knows more, but there are just too many factors. So many ships are lost because of things like bad damage control, which isn't necessarily a reflection on the power of the weapon that hit them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:*laughs in Argentinean* Sheffield is interesting as it is the other side of the coin to Stark. If they had a way to get the fire under control they probably could have saved it, just like Stark. Not sure how good British damage control was in comparison to US, or if it was just a luckier hit. Also the Oliver Hazard's had a reputation for being tough so maybe that helped too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Stuff Thank you for the write up! It was very interesting. It really seems like bad portable pumps is the make or break of damage control. If you have good pumps that you can power, and get where they need to be, and have people trained to use them, a ship can survive a hell of a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The important thing, the really important thing, about ships is that the water needs to be on the outside. Pumps help with that To be pedantic though, a lot of times ships are saved by judicious flooding to either correct for, or to create a list. It takes a certain amount of bravery in my mind to let more water in when the ship is already flooding, but if it prevents the ship from flipping over then I guess it's worth it. One of the things that helped save the Stark was they flooded the side of the hull that wasn't hit, to tilt the ship and keep the hole above sea level. It's one of those decisions you probably don't have time to do all the math for, and if it makes the problem worse you'll be crucified for it after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
Argas posted:Once again the IJN was ahead of its time. First it was aircraft carriers as a crucial arm of the fleet, then it was specializing in night fighting. Unfortunately it is hard to pivot from night fighting at sea to night fighting on land. US Navy: "We can use Radar to fight at night!" IJN: "What if binocular.... but B I G" SerCypher fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Mar 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Argas posted:We'll call them I think they were called 'Big Eyes' IRL so unironically yessssss.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
The fact that armies are getting implausibly huge doesn't help any of this either. Especially given how complicated they are to mobilize. It's almost like the concept of MAD with nuclear weapons. As soon as one side starts mobilizing everyone has to, and history has shown you can only keep massive armies mobilized for so long without someone deciding to do something with one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Fray posted:The French had placed a shitton of American aircraft orders as well. Their most successful fighter was in fact an American one that arrived right before hostilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-36_Hawk
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:
If the Allies lost, every general and politician would likely have been tried for war crimes. So that statement may be more about how vindictive the Japanese/Germans would be if they won.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 18:01
|
|