Completely from my armchair, I would imagine the US would base its decision off of intelligence. But, given our bases/friends in ME we could simply march in from the east, but more than likely thats for small bands and drones.That's IF anyone in the middle east sides with the US. I don't think that's anything that could be relied on. The most important country that America would also have to get on its side would be Turkey and that's just not going to happen.
I would say Spain/Portugal. Closer to France, perhaps, but I would be interested in the economic strongholds; personally focus on Germany, France, and England.Spain and Portugal seem all right, but then you'd be harrowed by the British and French from Bordeaux to Gibraltar.
While this is all very silly - why not take over the UK first, if you have naval superiority? You get yourself a nice Airstrip One to launch further invasions from. It has the extra fun factor of doing what the Brits did for hundreds of years against them, and blocking all attempts to send aid across the Channel from the rest of Europe (you'd have to block the east too, naturally).Naval superiority is not all that's needed to launch an invasion any more, the Americans would have to send their ships all the way across the Atlantic meaning their first attacks (they get multiple chances simply because they have many carriers) have to break through and land soldiers down before any aircraft even get close. The British had naval superiority in the Falklands war against a foe entrenched on an island but an American attack on the British Isles would be subject to submarine fire (some of which include Royal Navy subs which pride themselves on never having been detected even by Americans during joint military excersizes, not even going to bring up the sexy astute class submarine) aerial attacks from Britain, France and Spain (fielding some of the most modern aircraft on their home turf from several airbases with no risk of losing everything should one vital point fall - as is the case with a carrier).
Another thing to consider in this war is geography Europe is rather flat and urban while the east coast is a thin strip of cities next to mountains making the US much more defensible.That's an advantage I should add to the Europeans, the American's bad geography :P
I'm curious who Canada would join in a world war between Britain and the US.A war between JUST Britain and the US? Canada would stay neutral, Britain would get massacred and Canada doesn't do massacres :P
why is switzerland listed on the european side? Switzerland isn't part of the EU. it is part of some of the economic treaties, but it feels out of place in this context.It's all of Europe vs America, even Switzerland, Norway and the Balkans are in on it.
I also do not see how America WOULD go about defeating the EU.
There is no way to successfully invade the mainland United States. Period. Your best case scenario is to cause a societal collapse, but you won't be occupying that, you've just managed to create Afghanistan at its worst times infinity (I've argued before that American society has every element besides a breakdown of the rule of law for this to happen), which will take decades if not a century to end.
Simply give the order to attack (http://www.letsgo-europe.com/Germany/military/installations.html)There's only over 65,000 Murrican troops in Europe, not nearly enough. Even in Germany they'd be outnumbered nearly 9 to 1, and that's where a third of them are stationed.
How would an allied European force go about launching an invasion of the U.S.?Invade from the Bermuda Islands, French Guiana and pray and hope that Obama causes half of America to join the invaders.
I could make some rules of this if you guys wanna forum wargame this. I'm thinking 5 players, one US, four Euro, thus capturing the fractured problem Europe faces.Funny you mention that, I thought 5 Euros was the number too :P
Cut all American forces by two thirds. Those need to stay at home to prevent South America moving in.Some of the South America militaries are nice nice and well but how would they even get to the USA?
Cut all American forces by two thirds. Those need to stay at home to prevent South America moving in.Some of the South America militaries are nice nice and well but how would they even get to the USA?
That's an advantage I should add to the Europeans, the American's bad geography :PRight, exactly - their entire economic core is on conveniently landable gently sloping beaches facing the US.
There are a lot of mountains in Europe, really only the southern English, northern French, Belgium, Dutch and northern German countryside are that flat.
Simply give the order to attack (http://www.letsgo-europe.com/Germany/military/installations.html)There's only over 65,000 Murrican troops in Europe, not nearly enough. Even in Germany they'd be outnumbered nearly 9 to 1, and that's where a third of them are stationed.
Right, exactly - their entire economic core is on conveniently landable gently sloping beaches facing the US.
Thread doesnt really fully make sense without objectives. You can't just be abstractly "at war." What for? You need to know because what is winning?
Also, the idea that the Abrams is outclassed and outclasses evenly amongst European main battle tanks is more than a little ridiculous.
Thread doesnt really fully make sense without objectives. You can't just be abstractly "at war." What for? You need to know because what is winning?
Since when did wars start needing reason?
America has never been cost efficient and its power never came for the military : it's the other way around, america have a huge army becaause of its huge economy and scientific dominance. On the field, the Americain army don't perform that well for its price, and is rarely used efficiently (see war in Iraq, War in afganistan, Vietnam,....). On the other hand, European power tend to use their armies more efficiently and more cost effectively.[citation needed]
The U.S. had trouble in Vietnam (and in Afghanistan as well as Gulf War Two: Electric Boogaloo) for an obvious reason: we were trying to fight asymmetric conflicts against what were functionally loosely organized militias capable of striking, dropping their weapons, and blending with civilian populations... with a military designed to take on the Soviets in a straight war.
Which explains why so many americans were so completely shocked and horrified at the comparatively few deaths in September 2001.
a nation not really used to dealing with conflict
Quotea nation not really used to dealing with conflict
I recall a conversation once with an american who described the 9-11 attacks as "the worst civilian death toll from any single event in the history of the world."
They were serious.
If I remember right, there were a little under 2.5 million dead on the other side, over half of which were not militant.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The U.S. had trouble in Vietnam (and in Afghanistan as well as Gulf War Two: Electric Boogaloo) for an obvious reason: we were trying to fight asymmetric conflicts against what were functionally loosely organized militias capable of striking, dropping their weapons, and blending with civilian populations... with a military designed to take on the Soviets in a straight war. Note that the exact same thing happened to European states in the same situations (in the same places, even); the French were chased out of Vietnam and ex-Soviet soldiers could have given a word of advice or three to the U.S. about the sort of quagmire that Afghanistan turns in to when you try to occupy it. It's been more than a decade and only now are we starting to see noticeable changes targeted directly at fighting that sort of conflict.
The plain truth is that U.S. military force is still largely oriented around a type of war that really isn't fought any more -- large, powerful states don't war amongst themselves in this era. That said, that's also why the U.S. could utterly curbstomp just about any other state or group of states (barring something like U.S. vs. the world), because apart from China (whose arms are vastly out of date) nobody else bothers trying to field large militaries, not least because most of the other states which potentially could no longer have colonies to hold, and prefer to use their income for other things, especially given that many of them are in NATO and as such would reasonably expect U.S. support if for some reason they did need a big, stompy military machine for a few months.
Now, another question: What would the outcome have been if the Cold War had never existed, because the East-West conflict went hot as soon as Berlin fell?
Wait, what?
The U.S. had trouble in Vietnam (and in Afghanistan as well as Gulf War Two: Electric Boogaloo) for an obvious reason: we were trying to fight asymmetric conflicts against what were functionally loosely organized militias capable of striking, dropping their weapons, and blending with civilian populations... with a military designed to take on the Soviets in a straight war. Note that the exact same thing happened to European states in the same situations (in the same places, even); the French were chased out of Vietnam and ex-Soviet soldiers could have given a word of advice or three to the U.S. about the sort of quagmire that Afghanistan turns in to when you try to occupy it. It's been more than a decade and only now are we starting to see noticeable changes targeted directly at fighting that sort of conflict.
So yeah, the US army lack versatility and suffer from an unrealistic management. Add to that that Americains tend not to understand what war is and seems to take it for a glorified police operation.The plain truth is that U.S. military force is still largely oriented around a type of war that really isn't fought any more -- large, powerful states don't war amongst themselves in this era. That said, that's also why the U.S. could utterly curbstomp just about any other state or group of states (barring something like U.S. vs. the world), because apart from China (whose arms are vastly out of date) nobody else bothers trying to field large militaries, not least because most of the other states which potentially could no longer have colonies to hold, and prefer to use their income for other things, especially given that many of them are in NATO and as such would reasonably expect U.S. support if for some reason they did need a big, stompy military machine for a few months.
I don't agree : large state don't go to war because of M.A.D. and Putin is challenging even that. You say that the US could destroy any conventional army in an all out war, but I disagree. Or at least, I don't agree with your reasons. The US could destroy any country's military because of his allies : it have military bases all over the world and can make supply line to anywhere. If it had to rely on Aircraft carriers, it would lose : they would not be safe at all.
I think it is very worrying that Americains seems to think that their military is their strong point. It's not. America is pretty bad, it even was in WW2 : it had trouble with Japan, a tiny mountainous island. And against germany, they had about the same casualites as the German despite outnumbering them 5 to one, indigenous support, total air superiority, and the fact that the best German units where on the eastern front.Now, another question: What would the outcome have been if the Cold War had never existed, because the East-West conflict went hot as soon as Berlin fell?
Stalin had one million men on the Americains, and didn't have to cross the atlantic to approvision his troops. Most of the resistance movements were communists and would have sided with him. On the other hand, the allied were planning to use German troops againt the Red army, and they would have been defending Germany. I'd say that Russia would still win, quite easily. I don't think that the US army would have been able to whistand the brutality of the Red Army. They were almost overwhelmed by the Ardenne offensive which is the only time the US faced thee "good" german units.
They were almost overwhelmed by the Ardenne offensive which is the only time the US faced thee "good" german units.
Now, another question: What would the outcome have been if the Cold War had never existed, because the East-West conflict went hot as soon as Berlin fell?Nukes: Nukes everywhere. If the Rosenberg spy ring is still successful then nukes for everyone, if not then nukes for communists. Russia would be hurt after having been hurt.
I think it's a safe bet that the Allies wouldn't have been wiping out the Russians with nuclear hellfires anytime soon.If the Rosenbergs give the Soviet Union nuclear secrets, the USA has 7 years to nuke the USSR into oblivion. If they fail, the USA has at most 20 years to nuke the USSR into oblivion.
The problem with using nuclear bombs to gank the Soviets is production. The Americans more or less used their entire nuclear arsenal on Japan, with a single bomb ready in the reserves. At most. And that's after several months of Uranium refinement. Admittedly I have no idea how many bombs were still under construction when WWII ended, or the projected rates of production assuming that WWII continued against the Soviets, but I think it's a safe bet that the Allies wouldn't have been wiping out the Russians with nuclear hellfires anytime soon. But on the other hand, strategic deployment of nuclear bombs to eliminate Russian production centers should tip the advantage towards the Allies. So... sucks to be the Russians?In 1945, six warheads were available by the end of the year. 1946, that goes up to 11, then 32 in 1947, and by the end of 1948, it skyrockets to 110 [Ref (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab9.asp)], most of which were Mark 3 "Fat Men" implosion weapons. In other words, that's Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Vladivostok, Sevastopol, and oh, let's say Baku hammered in an instant. That said, it's not the end of the world. These were the little suckers used on Nagasaki, not what we of the 21st century usually think of when we hear "nuke". The first proper post-war bomb, the Mark 4 (a comprehensive rationalization and simplification of the Mark 3), didn't enter production until 1949, and the first major expansion of explosive yield wouldn't come until the 1952 Mark 5. You can expect a massive expansion in the Mark 4 program under ongoing wartime pressures, but I'd expect that to actually take resources from the Mark 5 and Snark (the first American ICBM) projects as well.
Here's an old, old question from an emotion thread: if a a second civil war was started in America/Britain, what resources and circumstances would be needed for the rebels to overthrow the government?
They'll have to fight all the way from Germany to the Urals against not the disorganized and micromanaged-to-oblivion Red Army of 1941, but the hardened and experienced fighting force that is the Red Army of 1945.
Okay, another question: If the Republicans had won the Spanish Civil War, would Spain have joined WWII on the allies' side? If yes, what are the implications of such a change?
The west doesn't need to push to win though. The west can win a war of attrition and can win a stalemate. In an attrition circumstance, the Russian manpower is already exhausted while the Americans+British+French have most of their young men still alive. The Russians have another 2 million or so men coming of age annually (idk the real figure, just a guess), the six million already under arms and whatever they can raise from their new empire. They had more men but the war hurt the Russians badly. The west has more men coming of age each year, plus huge numbers of undrafted men and could probably get quite a few Germans on their side too. Attrition is bad for the Soviets, they would need to win the war before those numbers tells.If it's a stalemate going into the 50s, both sides lose as the war goes nuclear. The Soviets cannot attack due to their logistics situation, but the Allies, if they make the Soviets an open enemy, absolutely cannot afford to let the Soviet Union survive in any form. If you thought the German Dolchstoss legend was bad, create a Soviet stab-in-the-back that's rooted in facts and open war, and one with a soon-to-be-nuclear power that knows for an absolute truth that the West will betray them at the drop of a hat and must be destroyed first before it destroys them. If the Allies invade, they will need to occupy Russia to win, utterly eradicating everything about the Soviet system root and branch to inculcate an entirely new psychology in the people to make them think that the Soviet system that brought them to Berlin was fundamentally wrong and that the Western system that stole their victory away fundamentally right, because anything less is a loss for both sides. Even such an Allied victory (and we'll assume it happens, even though there's a very real chance it won't) will be costly, leaving aside the war itself; it will necessitate de-Nazification on a continental scale. If the Soviet Union or some theoretical Russian successor state following a Soviet defeat goes the way of interwar Germany, it's going to be a World War Three between nuclear powers.
Stalemate is even worse for the Russians though because the airwar is ridiculously stacked against them. The west would have like a 3-4 numerical advantage in fighters and the fighters would be of greater quality. When the allies finally broke the German airforce the results were very bad for German industry and logistics, we just dont appreciate how bad because the war ended so soon after. The Russian army was brilliantly organized for deep penetration operations but those operations require having trucks and tanks in working order, not logistically trapped.
So the Soviets need to attack or they lose. If they could somehow take all of France they could maybe figure something out but it would be dicey.
The plan was taken by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces in Europe and the Middle East, where the conflict was projected to take place. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers. Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous".
The USSR survived a hell of a lot of time being underneath Nazi air superiority. Planes don't win wars, and the Ruskie had a pretty big advantage on the ground, with the t34 being a great tank, the logistics in place well able to create them, and having a 3 to 1 advantage over the Western Allies. Planes and Nukes aren't enough to make up that difference, especially when the West would be politically fractured.
I propose a kickstarter campaign to buy Netherlands a tank.
I really don't see how air superiority would help : the allies would stand no chance on the ground, fielding bad ttanks like the sherman against soviet IS,
Lol yeah because heavy tanks were so important in the course of a world war.
QuoteLol yeah because heavy tanks were so important in the course of a world war.
Well, in world war 2 you may have heard of blitzkrieg. It had some success.
QuoteLol yeah because heavy tanks were so important in the course of a world war.
Well, in world war 2 you may have heard of blitzkrieg. It had some success.
Fun fact: the most used tank in Blitzkrieg was Panzer II, which was armed with 20mm main turret and one 7.92mm machine-gun. Also ~30mm of armor. Yeah.QuoteLol yeah because heavy tanks were so important in the course of a world war.
Well, in world war 2 you may have heard of blitzkrieg. It had some success.
Wouldn't that be because the main role of a tank is infantry support rather than other shooting other tanks. They're not really designed to go head to head with other tanks, rather they break enemy infantry. Tank destroyers are for VS other tanks, and even than at long range. The armours more a "In case you get hit you might not die" rather than "tank all the shells.".
I am confused as to why the West needs to fully occupy Russia to secure victory. Once the border is at Finland, Poland and either Romania or Ukraine they have achieved all their objectives. Sure the Soviet union would lick it's wounds but it would be doing so as a far, far weaker power.That assumes that the war starts with that objective in mind. Many of those who advocated war at this stage did not just want a bunch of border states; they wanted Communism destroyed. That said, let's say that they manage to restrict themselves, in spite of the severe losses, to their pre-war aims. The Soviet will know for a fact that it lost its security for the sake of "Western greed", and it will have a severe case of revanchism - all of its gains have been lost, all of its efforts to gain security for its home territories negated by perfidy. An Allied Finland puts enemy forces kilometres from its second-largest city; an Allied Poland, especially restored to its interwar borders, sits athwart the major corridor into Russian lands while occupying Belarussian and Ukrainian lands; an Allied Ukraine, in the nightmare situation for Soviet leadership, is literally cutting the heart of ancestral Rus out of the country, and more practically seizing its largest breadbasket as well as threatening both its warm water ports south and its access to oil in the Caucasus. Consider what will be going through the heads of the Soviet leadership after such a war: they allied with Nazi Germany for security, which spontaneously invaded them without any fair cause; they allied with the United States and the United Kingdom for security, which spontaneously invaded them (to their eyes) without any fair cause. Now, combine this with the fact that in this timeline, nuclear warfare will be considered a regular part of conventional warfare due to the regular use of those American weapons to reduce Soviet war capacity, and with the fact that the Soviet Union will almost certainly have become a nuclear power itself by this point. That is why it becomes necessary to fully occupy Russia in order to prevent a future war. Because, if it's not done, you end up with a situation in which a revanchist Soviet Union that has recovered after a decade or two (with commensurate increase in nuclear weapons power) is far, far more willing to launch a nuclear first strike in preemptive self-defense, because it's not paranoia if the world really is out to get you.
Air power will indeed prove critical in blunting the 3:1 advantage of Soviet ground forces over Allied power
Also, here's a fun fact: while the Allied powers had a 3:1 superiority in heavy bombers, it's actually the Soviets who have numerical air superiority in fighters and fighter-bombers, apparently by around 11k planes. Certainly, the Allied fighters may be superior in quality (though this itself is a questionable assertion, as the Yak-3 was arguably close to, if not the equal of the P-51), but in the near term, it's actually the Soviets who would be able to seize air superiority
They could try to refocus part of their army into anti-air profile from the anti-ground one, because of 2-1 advantage on land...
Also, Allied forces attacking USSR would cause most of Europe to join USSR in a wave of communist revolutions.
France, Belgium and Italy would certainly have revolted. Comunism declined later when word of Stalin exess came in the west, but aat the time comunism was big.
If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.France, Belgium and Italy would certainly have revolted. Comunism declined later when word of Stalin exess came in the west, but aat the time comunism was big.
There were large socialist movements but you could hardly say the general population wanted to be allies with the Soviet Union. The military even less so. The French communist party only took about 1/4th the votes in 1946. That's significant but hardly a country on the verge of a pro-Stalinist revolution.
If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.
???Because it's a fundamental assumption to any Allied invasion of the USSR to roll back the borders. Operation Unthinkable requires absolutely no warning to be given to the Soviet Union. It's also a fundamental violation of agreements made at Yalta. What do you usually call a sudden sneak-attack made against an allied power? ^_^
Okay, why are we assuming this is a backstab? Also where did you learn French history?
It is hot off WWII. Russia was an ally. The propaganda machine demonizing communism probably has not gone into full swing... yet.If the war against USSR has erupted, then populace, who were propaganda'd for at least three years to cheer for Russian soldiers, would not understand the Allies literally backstabbing their ally-in-war against Hitler. And after that comes the revolution.
???
Okay, why are we assuming this is a backstab? Also where did you learn French history?
Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable? It's strategically idiotic. The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign. Why would they attack before increasing their strength?So, the scenario is going to start with the cold war going normally, except, the Allies build up forces across the border... then attacking when they are good and ready? After the propaganda demonizing Communism sets in.
25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.
The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe. It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.
Sorry, I didn't mean that air superiority by the Soviets was predicated on CAS alone; that whole paragraph was meant for the person saying that heavy tanks were more important than air superiority, which can be disproved by how quickly German offensives unraveled in the late war under Allied bombing campaigns. I meant that those fighters are going to be tasked with hitting the Allied heavy bombers before they can reach Soviet logistics. They won't necessarily succeed perfectly on that, and they'll likely burn through their fuel at a significant rate (the Lend-Lease program is presently supplying over 80% of the Soviet's aviation fuel needs; its cessation will require raw petrol and refineries to be retasked to making up the gap), but it will be very important to the near-term successes or failures of Operation Unthinkable.Air power will indeed prove critical in blunting the 3:1 advantage of Soviet ground forces over Allied power
The Soviets simply did not have 3:1 superiority in ground forces in 1946. They had that advantage in number of divisions but Soviet divisions were massively depleted while western divisions were at full strength.Also, here's a fun fact: while the Allied powers had a 3:1 superiority in heavy bombers, it's actually the Soviets who have numerical air superiority in fighters and fighter-bombers, apparently by around 11k planes. Certainly, the Allied fighters may be superior in quality (though this itself is a questionable assertion, as the Yak-3 was arguably close to, if not the equal of the P-51), but in the near term, it's actually the Soviets who would be able to seize air superiority
Nope, look at the Germans. They sent 80% of their fighters west and the allies achieved complete air superiority while they sent 20% of them east and the Germans dive bombers were able to operate much more aggressively and take fewer losses.
The Soviets had some decent late war designs but the allies had better planes and most crucially, better pilots.
The real issue with air superiority isn't close air support (which sure is handy though) but the fact that Soviet logistics are gonna get bombed to hell. The Germans had a million men on air defense and another million on rebuilding duties. Where are the Soviets going to find that manpower to spare in their six million man army?
So, just out of curiosity as well, how are they going to explain this to their soldiers and, more importantly, their constituents? The Allies have already been drawing down their forces in 1945, serving discharge papers and the like. Churchill is out of office, and to the home front, the war is over. Politically, the only real window for an invasion is during or immediately after the fall of Germany. If you suddenly start mobilizing your forces again, Truman's going to have to go before Congress, and Churchill's going to have to explain to Parliament why he, a caretaker leader of the opposition, has started another war - really, Churchill will have to do that anyways. Any theoretical war will have to bear that in mind.Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable? It's strategically idiotic. The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign. Why would they attack before increasing their strength?So, the scenario is going to start with the cold war going normally, except, the Allies build up forces across the border... then attacking when they are good and ready? After the propaganda demonizing Communism sets in.
25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.
The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe. It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.
Alright, so not a backstab. No surprise element either.
The scenario as I understand it is that the cold war goes hot over Berlin in 1946. I'm saying that the west would be delighted if the soviets let them just sit around in Germany building up their forces and bombing the east german infrastructure for six months.Ah, and my assumption was completely different. Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946? Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.
Why are we assuming Operation Unthinkable? It's strategically idiotic. The west could, in a year achieve numerical superiority in Europe and destroy Soviet logistical capacity through a leisurely bombing campaign. Why would they attack before increasing their strength?
25% of France supporting a democratic left coaltion that included communists does not equate to 25% of France supporting Communist revolution.
The French were actively building an army in 46 to stand against the Soviet treat to Europe. It isn't a question of if the French would be allies with the Brits and Americans, it's how much they could assemble.
If it was THAT EASY to defeat USSR, then we must assume that all western commanders were idiots for not seeing the superiority of pure air bombing doctrine and not attacking USSR.
If we assume that western commanders are not stupid, then you must also admit that you underestimate the soviet fighting power. (EDIT: or overestimate western superiority...)
You're in a fork now. Choose one.
Ah, and my assumption was completely different. Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946? Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATOIf it was THAT EASY to defeat USSR, then we must assume that all western commanders were idiots for not seeing the superiority of pure air bombing doctrine and not attacking USSR.
If we assume that western commanders are not stupid, then you must also admit that you underestimate the soviet fighting power. (EDIT: or overestimate western superiority...)
You're in a fork now. Choose one.
Loaded question is loaded. Maybe they didn't want to kill ten million people in a war of aggression that would have created an unpalatable new world order.
Frankly I consider it somewhat disturbing that you consider "because we can" sufficient reason for war.Ah, and my assumption was completely different. Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946? Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.
Whoops, mixed up the years I guess. I have no clue what the politics are, just looking at the military side of things. But I imagine the politics would work themselves out pretty quickly because the Soviets are probably going to start pushing into West Germany, trying to grab territory before NATO brings it's troops in.
I think the point of what many people are saying, is while not easy, a war against the USSR *could* be won through logistics and bombing.Yep, almost two-thirds of their truck fleet is Allied-made. 86% of their aviation fuel is Allied. Soviet production of locomotives and rolling stock for repairing existing and constructing new rail lines effectively ceased, replaced entirely by Lend-Lease. The critical component, though, is food - the total food shipments was well over 1 million tons. Much of the Soviet breadbasket, the Ukraine and the black earth belt, was ravaged in the war, and won't recover for a couple years.
Also, the lend lease program gave the Russians many, many trucks. Without that many of their factories would turn from tank production into truck production, or else they would face many logistical problems.
An understandable mistake, and one I'v emade before. Unfortunately, the two-year difference is critical to this argument. The Soviets no longer need to hold off for four years, but less than one - RDS-1 will be detonated in August of 1949. A war over the Berlin Blockade (say, an accident during the airlift), is at a critical stage in global politics and a tenuous military situation. On the Soviet side, they've started to recover from the war; Lend-Lease becomes less relevant, as the Soviets have rebuilt at home and added on the industrial spoils of war from a denuded Germany. The army numbers are absolutely terrible for the Allies - the entire US Army of half a million men, worldwide, is outnumbered thrice-over by the Soviet forces surrounding Berlin alone, and we're no longer looking at tattered divisions fresh from the Battle of Berlin that you mentioned, but a fully-prepared force that is taking part in a carefully-staged provocation that has just gone off the rails (Stalin didn't want war, either; he wanted to use it to secure concessions). The Soviet Air Force has just been thoroughly reorganized; the VVS is getting a lot of love, and is on the verge of following the American lead as a separate branch of the armed forces (1949). On the Allied side, though official doctrine calls for nuclear carpet-bombing in order to stem this tide, they have no nuclear-capable aircraft available at the commencement of hostilities - less than three dozen atomic-capable B-29s exist, and the first of them won't arrive in Europe until April of next year, though that's likely to be expedited under the circumstances. Still worse, that means that each of those aircraft will get less than two bombs to drop: in mid-1948, the American nuclear arsenal hasn't yet breached the hundred-count. On the bright side, the Mark 4 about to enter full production, and the first cruise missile, the Matador, will be tested in 1949 (for general production by 1953 and deployment by 1954, though I'd expect it to be rushed due to the war - expect it a couple years after the war begins). The mention of Pershings and Centurions earlier is also changed by the two year separation - they've gone from blueprint to reality, and are now the main battle tank of the American and British forces, with the imminent arrival of the Pattons also to be eagerly anticipated. By contrast, the T-44 is going through serious teething issues, but the T-54 is also entering mass production as well. France is also going to be in much better shape for such a war; they'll be organized and ready to fight.Ah, and my assumption was completely different. Just out of curiosity, how does it go hot in 1946? Stalin doesn't make his move on Berlin until 1948.
Whoops, mixed up the years I guess. I have no clue what the politics are, just looking at the military side of things. But I imagine the politics would work themselves out pretty quickly because the Soviets are probably going to start pushing into West Germany, trying to grab territory before NATO brings it's troops in.
Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?They knew how to conduct a naval invasion, it's just that they were really unlucky with weather. Like the Spain with their Grandee Armada.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949"
An understandable mistake, and one I'v emade before. Unfortunately, the two-year difference is critical to this argument.
Now, another question: What would the outcome have been if the Cold War had never existed, because the East-West conflict went hot as soon as Berlin fell?
Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?
They knew how to conduct a naval invasion, it's just that they were really unlucky with weather. Like the Spain with their Grandee Armada.The Spanish were defeated at the battle of Gravelines before the storm wrecked the survivors and the Mongolians did not know how to conduct a naval invasion. When they saw the storm coming they reembarked on their naval vessels to sail away, right into the storm and Japanese fleet. In the second they used boats like these:
The storm that destroyed the Mongol Invasion fleet was named Divine Wind - Kamikaze - by Japanese.
Um, none? His successors were hardly incompetent and he couldn't rely on people being surprised by the reintroduction of horse archers forever.When Genghis died the Mongols all went back to Mongolia, when Ogedei died they all went back to Mongolia. Him staying alive that much longer would mean Xi-Xia and the Jin dynasty are conquered and Subatai and Ogedei can both invade the hell out of Eastern Europe much sooner and fresh from the momentum of their victories, as long as Genghis dies after the initial Mongolian victories over Austria then in the following campaign Subatai could also be able to successfully invade the Holy Roman Empire before the death of Ogedei pressures him to withdraw.
You can't assume that just because the Mongols have a decent streak of victories going they are unbeatable. They luck did run out y'know. They push a little sooner, they get bogged down a little sooner I say.During the rainy years of Mongolia and with their best generals still alive and with European tactics still being almost as backwards as Japanese tactics the Mongolians have a window of opportunity to take it over. I wonder if the Mongolians would crack the shells of European fortresses and corner the Egyptian cavalry.
You mean the same outdated European tactics that had worked against Attila the Hun 800 years previously?You compare the defeat of Attila at the battle of the Catalaunian plains and the Mongol victories at the battle of Mohi or the battle of Legnica. Attila charges into the Romans and dies at the battle of the Catalaunian plains. The Mongols in the battle of Mohi adapt around setbacks like losing the bridge by building their own, counter their crossbowmen with catapults and ultimately outflank the enemy and drive them to destruction into the marshes (always stopping short of encircling them so they never fought to the death) or in Legnica where they just kept retreating and firing arrows into the European forces as they tended to do on a standard basis.
Eurasian history is chock full of hordes or nomads sweeping in from the wilderness. The Mongolians happened to be the most successful of these. While it's possible that there was something inherently different about them it's also just possible that they happened to be the luckiest. Considering that Mongolians went on to lose some battles pretty badly later and there was no major difference in their tactics compared to what had been around for more then 1000 years, I'm gonna say that it's just an example of every probability curve having a tail end.
Or y'know, Russia knights backed up by peasant levies.The Mongolians wiped Eastern European Knights with peasant levies into the floor though, what are you trying to say? You do realize you're comparing Genghis Khan to nameless barbarian leaders?
The tactics only worked until they didn't. History is undoubtedly full of barbarian leaders who lost and no one remembered a century later.
Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.
Heh, I think we should actually get a new topic for each of this scenarios, as this one is getting really messy, really quickly.Scenarios come and go and multiple threads clutter and fight one another across all theatres of board operation until only one thread yet remains, subjecting all others to its unending hegemony in the top spot above a sea of emotion megathreads.
Also, I would say that Allies would have a pretty good chance against Soviets in 1945; there is a very good reason to believe that, and this reason is the fact that Stalin didn't attack them. He wanted communism to spread to all corners of the world; only superior military could stop him from doing that. And as he didn't sweep down on West in 1945... Well, at least in his mind Soviets didn't have enough of an advantage.One of the most successful generals in WWII was incompetent?
All that said, we need to take into account that Western Allies had some pretty damn impressive generals. Soviets had Zhukov, who was as incompetent as it gets...
Also the British Isles would look decidedly more Scandinavian and the Byzantine Empire wouldn't get to make its extensive use of the Varangian Guard as the English would not have felt the same need to flee.Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.Interesting. Probably no Great Britain nor Empire, and as a result no USA in the way we would identify it. A non unified and probably infighting British Isles would have been a tempting cherry for any of the early middle age powers.
Heh, I think we should actually get a new topic for each of this scenarios, as this one is getting really messy, really quickly.Scenarios come and go and multiple threads clutter and fight one another across all theatres of board operation until only one thread yet remains, subjecting all others to its unending hegemony in the top spot above a sea of emotion megathreads.Also, I would say that Allies would have a pretty good chance against Soviets in 1945; there is a very good reason to believe that, and this reason is the fact that Stalin didn't attack them. He wanted communism to spread to all corners of the world; only superior military could stop him from doing that. And as he didn't sweep down on West in 1945... Well, at least in his mind Soviets didn't have enough of an advantage.One of the most successful generals in WWII was incompetent?
All that said, we need to take into account that Western Allies had some pretty damn impressive generals. Soviets had Zhukov, who was as incompetent as it gets...Also the British Isles would look decidedly more Scandinavian and the Byzantine Empire wouldn't get to make its extensive use of the Varangian Guard as the English would not have felt the same need to flee.Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.Interesting. Probably no Great Britain nor Empire, and as a result no USA in the way we would identify it. A non unified and probably infighting British Isles would have been a tempting cherry for any of the early middle age powers.
Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars) I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.
What about the development of Ireland without Britain interfering? Would we see them grow to be a powerful nation of some sort? Or would they be riddled by infighting like England, Scotland, and Wales?
Yeah, then they'd have to contend with the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. America would also be French.
And when no one's watching the Icelandic Empire pulls the rug out from Europe.Yeah, then they'd have to contend with the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. America would also be French.I suspect the Spanish influence on the USA would also be far more significant.
Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?
Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.
Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars) I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.
I'd say a large swath of generals in WW2 were incompetent... simply because to be competent in WW2 you have to create your own strategy.Except for the German (Rommel for one) commanders, who pretty much revolutionized the way the war was fought, massed tank formations of blitzkrieg and the like, when the Germans stormed into France, the French, even with arguably better tanks, were out matched by the tactics, and used their tanks as infantry support, scattering them.
Losing does not necessarily equate to incompetence. Winning does not necessarily equate to genius either.Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars) I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.
Russia should be included on the European side. Pretty much everything important is in the European part of the country, and they wouldn't miss a chance like this to get rid of their nemesis. I reckon those numbers in the OP would look a lot different if Russia is included.
Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars) I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin)
I would. Although he might have learned something over the course of the years, I really think he didn't; his tactics in the '45 was almost the same that the one he used in '42 and '43. That being said, Koniev for example have been a much better commander, from what I've gathered in my years of interest in WW II, but overall, I think that Western Allies had much better commanders.
It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.
If they cut the trans Siberian line youre doneIt is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.
You could justify most anything using that logic, and it does invalidate DJ's point about Russia joining the war to get rid of their nemesis. I say that leaving Russia out is a fine decision since we're being pretty arbitrary anyway.
Though while we're on this point how viable would a invasion via eastern Siberia be? Supply lines would be atrocious but it would pretty much remove the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault on Europe itself.
If they cut the trans Siberian line you're doneExactly.
It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.
You could justify most anything using that logic, and it does invalidate DJ's point about Russia joining the war to get rid of their nemesis. I say that leaving Russia out is a fine decision since we're being pretty arbitrary anyway.
Though while we're on this point how viable would a invasion via eastern Siberia be? Supply lines would be atrocious but it would pretty much remove the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault on Europe itself.
If the us would invade Europe, would the Europeans, saying they lose the UK to the US, re-purpose whats left of Hitlers Atlantic wall?
Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.
Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.
Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.
Force through the strait? How many times? Just once? Or everytime they need to send/receive supply/reinforcements?Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.
Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.
If you force the strait once, you have probably dealt with their fleet, and can set up a blockade of the Rock while it wont fall because of Spanish support, you will have fairly free access to the Mediterranean.Force through the strait? How many times? Just once? Or everytime they need to send/receive supply/reinforcements?Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.
Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.
I don't see how an amphibious invasion of Ireland is going to work any better than one of Britain. You've still got the Royal Navy blocking your way, and preventing supply and reinforcement if you by miracle land a force.Even if unfeasible, if it did happen it would put Britain in a very tight spot.
Well, we're assuming they somehow took care of the fleet,
Well, we're assuming they somehow took care of the fleet. Taking over Ireland would be much easier than Britain itself, and would allow you to esentially starve them of US support and thus make your future invasion that much easier.Operation Green called for the involvement of over 50,000 German troops. This outnumbered the Irish Army and would have been better equipped,better led,better trained and have a better doctrine. Ireland during World War Two was woefully underprepared. Ireland had a army and reserves were 13,000 reduced from 18,750 following the phoney war. At the wars outbreak, most were poorly trained.
If you force the strait once, you have probably dealt with their fleet, and can set up a blockade of the Rock while it wont fall because of Spanish support, you will have fairly free access to the Mediterranean.The allied European fleets would do all in their power to never engage the American fleet directly, doing so would be suicide. So expect submarines everywhere launching missiles into the American fleet as it tries to move past heavily fortified coasts in extremely visible fashions under enemy air cover. More than possible, but risky, and if the American fleet succeeds what's the plan then? Move into the Mediterranean to do what?
New scenario! How would WWII been different if Hitler hadn't turned to bombing UK cities, and instead kept bombing strategic targets, and followed it up with an amphibious invasion of England?Best case scenario absolutely for Hitler is that he manages to eliminate or else keep the Royal Navy away from the UK with overwhelming air superiority and drums up support in Britain for his cause so the British people do not fight Nazi occupation or cannot effectively fight Nazi occupation. In that scenario the commonwealth continues fighting, though now America no longer has a convenient staging point for a landing and so Nazi Germany no longer spends vast wealths of resources on building a useless Atlantic wall and focuses fully on the USSR. Maybe these extra resources help Nazi Germany defeat the USSR but in all likelihood it just ends with all of Europe beyond the channel falling under the fold of the USSR.
If the us would invade Europe, would the Europeans, saying they lose the UK to the US, re-purpose whats left of Hitlers Atlantic wall?Barring what's still in good condition probably not. It was a waste of resources then and is even less effective today. In the modern age fortifications are built to be destroyed and lack the mobility to flee.
I still find it baffling that Germany has used the same attack-through-Belgium plan both in WW1 and in WW2, and it still caught everybody with surprise.They knew that Germany was in all likelihood going to go through Belgium to avoid the Maginot line, they just didn't expect the Germans to move that many tanks through a forest and do it with such speed that the allies would not be able to respond, hence why the BEF got stuck in Belgium with Frenchmen.
I still find it baffling that Germany has used the same attack-through-Belgium plan both in WW1 and in WW2, and it still caught everybody with surprise.And then later on, Battle of the Bulge.
I still find it baffling that Germany has used the same attack-through-Belgium plan both in WW1 and in WW2, and it still caught everybody with surprise.
Cant comment on other forces, but I am under the impression that the BEF was horribly ill-equipped to fight against armour. Not much in the way of anti-tank weaponry that would stop the German tanks, and no real plan of how to deal with massed armour formations.
We were just talking about the battle of Hastings a few pages back. And the Mongol hordes. Uh, okay. What would have happened if the Romans had won the Battle of Teutoberg forest? That or they had a competent enough governor so that the battle never happened.
New what if: What if Friedrick III didn't contract throat cancer and a liberal, pro-British Kaiser was in charge from 1888 onward?This. Is an Anglo-German alliance plausible? What would German navy policy have looked like? How does the web of alliances change? (Do we get a war of a French-Russian alliance vs. Britain and the German-speaking monarchies?)
The Chinese empire was ethnically homogenous (kinda), and had a completely different inner structure.
I've read from the first post, and since we're no longer restricted to talking about American invading Europe anymore, how about a possible Roman Empire vs Han Empire? I'm interested in a comparison between these two seemingly parallel nations.
Nooo, he means a Senate brawl.Depends on the amount of nanomachines.
Puerto Rico wins and becomes the new capital.And D.C. laughs in derision.
And they still wouldn't be able to vote.
The Dakotas and Manitoba win.North Dakota for third-largest nuclear power. ^_^
Puerto Rico wins and becomes the new capital.And D.C. laughs in derision.
And they still wouldn't be able to vote.The Dakotas and Manitoba win.North Dakota for third-largest nuclear power. ^_^
Putin ain't no socialist, and certainly not a digital one - but he'd get right along with all the rednecks who hate Europe. IIRC he was buddies with Bush...Russia is also ashining example of American right-wing values.
Let's fire this up again: The US states against each other. What alliances would form? How would the war end?
But then, who's the shining example of American left-wing values?
And Europe. I could honestly see volunteers coming over to finally be able to shoot at Americans :DBut then, who's the shining example of American left-wing values?
Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_UnionLet's fire this up again: The US states against each other. What alliances would form? How would the war end?
Isn't there a strategy game with exactly this scenario? Like.. Supreme Ruler 2020? I remember places like Arkansas, Kansas, etc being overpowered due to the game placing the real military bases in moderately real spots. Making random places in the midwest powerhouses, because they have relatively huge military detachments compared to other states. Texas/California/New York obviously being the superpowers [if Texas doesn't go to war with Mexico immediately, that is] and forming their own blocs. The midwest could become a mongol horde of its own terrifying form, though, depending on how the states fight eachother. Kinda like fallout lore explicitly states it devolves into.
And Europe. I could honestly see volunteers coming over to finally be able to shoot at Americans :DThat sounds about as fun as trying to poke a rabid orca underneath the ocean waves with a big stick expecting honey and money in return. Of your own volition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Union
Yeah, I think that was the game that has refused to launch on my previous computer at all. 3.0 shaders and Intel's integrated graphics chips don't mesh together too well. >:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Union
Big disappointment that one.
Yeah, I think that was the game that has refused to launch on my previous computer at all. 3.0 shaders and Intel's integrated graphics chips don't mesh together too well. >:(
I've seen papers showing that when some company decided to implement a good non-cheating AI in it's game the play-testers started crying on devforums telling them that it cheats and is unpredictable.Casuals ruin Fun D:<
I've seen papers showing that when some company decided to implement a good non-cheating AI in it's game the play-testers started crying on devforums telling them that it cheats and is unpredictable.Casuals ruin Fun D:<
[/derail]
New question: Revolution revolution hardmode; if France didn't support America would its monarchy have survived and what would the consequences be? A native American state? A British Empire that blobs its way across the world? A French Empire still led by aristocrats instead of competent autocrats?
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?Turkey.
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?England. They traditionally win when there's war on the continent.
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?Everyone who didn't participate in that war.
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?Everyone else.
NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?
Spillover from Europol thread: Russia vs Europe, how fucked is Russia?Short-term, the Baltics are overrun, and Russia makes some quick advances into Poland and various other neighbors, while Kaliningrad is absorbed by the Europeans. There's a fuckton of outrage, and partisan acitivity in the occupied territories surge to levels not seen since WWII. Once Europe gets its act together, the Russians are pushed back out of these territories, with Belarus conquered at the same time (look at the position of the Baltics). St. Petersburg is taken swiftly, and once spring rolls around German tanks are once more rolling towards Russia, the key difference being that the tanks beside them are French and English.
And I think we've learned by now not to try and invade in the winter.Technological advances have made it so that an allied assault into Russian Winter is possible for as long as English tanks are capable of giving a European coalition warm beverages from their bivies.
St. Petersburg, the second-most important industrial hub of Russia, is right behind the border. Moscow itself isn't too far away either. Most of the Russian population and industry is on this side of the Ural, which is - again - not too far away from the border (~1000km IIRC). The EU could probably invade successfully, but it would be far too costly - and the aftermath would make Iraq in 2003 look like a play-date.Nahh, russian will just move the industrial eastwards, except if you attack now as a surprise and dont give them a year or two to move it.
Nahh, russian will just move the industrial eastwards, except if you attack now as a surprise and dont give them a year or two to move it.
Is it? I am pretty sure it is actually now faster to move it compared to 42.Nahh, russian will just move the industrial eastwards, except if you attack now as a surprise and dont give them a year or two to move it.
Modern military industry is a little less mobile then it was in 1942.
Are you kidding? The MiG-35 is superior in performance to the F-16 in just about every way. It's faster, has a better thrust:weight ratio, has a greater rate of climb, has a greater flight ceiling, and was specifically defined to counter modern Western aircraft. The only problem is that there are only a handful of them.Russia has a lot of means to secure air supremacy, however. Ranging from anti-air missile complexes (S-300/400/500, Pantzir, etc.) everywhere to the fighter/interceptor aircraft on par with the best Western ones.wanna talk airfoce?
For starters Russia has no enough pilots and no enough modern aircrafts (not that MIG-35 is comparable to F-22 or F-35 or even modernized F-16)
Crap like su-27 and mig-31 is nothing but a target. Crap in what matters in modern warfare - electronics. Plus, repeating myself, Russia has no enough pilots to tackle NATO
The thing is, invading Moscow and St Peterborough would likely trigger a nuclear strike, and no one wants that.I disagree about 'likely': Any scenario where St. Petersburg and Moscow are invaded has Russia on the brink of total defeat anyway, and I trust the basic human decency of the politicians in charge enough that I don't believe they'd end life on this planet purely out of spite.
End life? You guys overestimate the power of nukes.Well, that's the popular perception of nuclear warfare, just like the popular perception of the aftermath of a nuclear plant failure being your friendly neighborhood nuclear desert.
basically forcing another ice ageNot really. Nuclear winter is not another ice age, it's a rerun of this event.
+ loads of radiation would smack up the ecosystem quite badly, though it wouldn't make the earth all that inhabitable2500 Test nukes have already been detonated. I don't think we have that many anymore. While, obviously, most tests were underground, that is offset by the fact that modern nukes create less fallout.
Quote+ loads of radiation would smack up the ecosystem quite badly, though it wouldn't make the earth all that inhabitable2500 Test nukes have already been detonated. I don't think we have that many anymore. While, obviously, most tests were underground, that is offset by the fact that modern nukes create less fallout.
I do love how the first comment is "thanks Obama"
"The formation of the technical basis for strategic nuclear forces is going at a faster rate, and in fact, we will renew not 70 percent of the SNF, but 100 percent," Rogozin told Rossiya TV channel.
That's one of my only fear : Nato armies had a pretty easy 40 years with no real large scale conventional operations against somewhat challenging ennemies. Plently of time for the structure to get rusty, officier to get complacent and commander to be choosen for how good they are at politics and not on the field.
Depend in what, Russia had overwhelming air superiority, which is pretty much an instant win.No. Air superiority doesn't mean it's a instant win. It depends from terrain mostly how much benefit from air superiority you can have.
Well, ground troops are needed to occupy the country afterward, to take cities... But to actually take down another army? Aircrafts all the way.
Aircraft is way too costly to actually kill the opposing army. You lose more in fuel, repair and downed aircraft than the recieving sides loses in infantry and tanks, unless you're fighting against a severely technologically/doctrinally inferior opponent.Unfair comparison, everyone knows Serbian artillery is guided by GOD. Regular ground forces would get smashed, especially with the addition of drones.
Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.
Aircraft is way too costly to actually kill the opposing army. You lose more in fuel, repair and downed aircraft than the recieving sides loses in infantry and tanks, unless you're fighting against a severely technologically/doctrinally inferior opponent.
Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.
Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.
Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.
It's odd that you would cite a war won entirely with airpower and no troops on the ground as an example of the limitations of airpower.
Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.
The point remains that there were, in fact, forces allied with NATO with boots on the ground.Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.
NATO had no boots on the ground and NATO didn't rely on UCK troops to secure objectives.
But that doesn't contradict the upshot of my point which was that the conflict illustrated that airpower alone could win a war. At best it's nitpicking.It wasn't only NATO's war.
Doesnt matter where they nato troops or other troops. Your post that there where no ground troops is not correct. Albanian fighters with coordination and support of air had a objective of capturing few key points in kosovo so they could push back the serb military in which they failed.Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.
NATO had no boots on the ground and NATO didn't rely on UCK troops to secure objectives.
But that doesn't contradict the upshot of my point which was that the conflict illustrated that airpower alone could win a war. At best it's nitpicking.
According to wikipedia, NATO claims 5,000 to 10,000 dead Serb soldiers, with other sources citing only a thousand. Still, if you want a better example, you could look at the first Gulf War: by the time the American tanks rolled in, there barely was an Iraqi army left. Granted, terrain was more open, but still.
The point is that if you have air supremacy, you're free to bomb the shit out of everything that move. It's clearly enough to destroy an army, or at least that army's infrastructure (although of course, you'd still need ground force to actually occupy the place).
Out of curiosity, where do you get your casualties numbers?Mostly local official sources
Want to know how majority of Ukrainian armorer vehicles looks like?Photos of various Ukrainian vehicles on the frontline. I nicked the photos here (http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/).Spoiler: like that: (click to show/hide)
Don't trust Wikipedia numbers :)
Not really. The massive air campaign against the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War is both an outlier and commonly overstated. Air supremacy does not have the capability to destroy an Army, as shown very specifically by the attempts of the Luftwaffe in WWII and especially the Gulf War, where despite being harried to hell and back, it was utter superiority in the technology, training, and strategy of treads in sand that buried the Republican Guard.
Also if the Luftwaffe had kept their bombing campaign to strategic and not civilian targets they would've overrun Britain and bombed her into submission."bombing into submission" thing literally never works. You cannot bomb people into obeying you without boots on the ground, and Germany would never had the capacity to invade the British Isles, not with the sheer amount of ships the UK had.
Also if the Luftwaffe had kept their bombing campaign to strategic and not civilian targets they would've overrun Britain and bombed her into submission."bombing into submission" thing literally never works. You cannot bomb people into obeying you without boots on the ground, and Germany would never had the capacity to invade the British Isles, not with the sheer amount of ships the UK had.
Also if the Luftwaffe had kept their bombing campaign to strategic and not civilian targets they would've overrun Britain and bombed her into submission.
Looks like they've played too much C:DDA.Want to know how majority of Ukrainian armorer vehicles looks like?Photos of various Ukrainian vehicles on the frontline. I nicked the photos here (http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/).Spoiler: like that: (click to show/hide)
Don't trust Wikipedia numbers :)Spoiler: An armoured UAZ minibus (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Ditto, with embrasures (click to show/hide)Spoiler: BMP-2 IFV with soldier helmets on the turret for protection (?) (click to show/hide)Spoiler: The iron grating on this BTR is for additional protection from RPGs (click to show/hide)Spoiler: XXI century's tachanka (click to show/hide)Spoiler: BMP-2 with various makeshift armour screens (click to show/hide)Spoiler: The blog where I found the photo calls such vehicles "armoured barns" (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Clearly inspired by M50 Ontos (click to show/hide)Spoiler: A fine example of Mad Max's school of engineering (click to show/hide)
Bonus:Spoiler: A pagan armoured truck of the DNR forces (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Ditto, after conversing to Christianity (click to show/hide)
You can't feed a war effort on carrots, less so an island of 50 million people. A Britain without coal, oil, food and munitions is not one that can fight.Also if the Luftwaffe had kept their bombing campaign to strategic and not civilian targets they would've overrun Britain and bombed her into submission.I think you fail to understand just how much smaller the airforces were at the time of the battle of Britain.
Ok, people have misunderstood me. Bombing the British citizens merely made them support the war effort harder, I am referring to the attacks on convoys that would have taken place completely unmolested by the RAF.Also if the Luftwaffe had kept their bombing campaign to strategic and not civilian targets they would've overrun Britain and bombed her into submission."bombing into submission" thing literally never works. You cannot bomb people into obeying you without boots on the ground, and Germany would never had the capacity to invade the British Isles, not with the sheer amount of ships the UK had.
Dude, Britain had a lot of colonies at the time. They would have just moved the production facilities there. In fact, the backup plan for Hitler conquering the British Isles was to move the government to Canada and direct the war from there.Haha, there is no way you'd be able to move shipyards and factories from Britain to Canada, Africa, India or Australia. Besides, it's a given that the British Empire would carry on fighting, it was even in Churchill's war speech. What's important here is that Britain would either starve and wilt or surrender. No more Western front of any sizeable capability.
Also German aviation was pretty short-ranged (and in general was oriented onto supporting the land troops), and without carriers, it could never establish a total sea control anywhere more than 200-300 km away from the nearest airfield. You can't sinks ships if your planes cannot reach them.
Sealion is kind of...oh, what's the term for it. I can't recall..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion Pretty much Germany's version of the D-Day landings at Normandy and the operations from there.Except shitter. Disappointed they didn't try, it would've ended the war so much sooner. What if you go the Mythbusters approach though; what would it take for Sealion to work? How many flying tanks would the Germans have to conjure up from thin air?
You can't feed a war effort on carrots, less so an island of 50 million people. A Britain without coal, oil, food and munitions is not one that can fight.
Yes, but I was thinking of a quality judgment rather than a factual statement. It was bloody, bloody stupid, but I had a neat pithy phrase for it that I completely forgot. :P For instance, Overlord was launched with specialized landing craft designed to put boots and treads on the sand as fast as possible. The Germans at this point were so hard-up for amphibious capacity that they wanted to press Rhine river barges into service for the operation, or in other words, craft that were designed for constrained river operations and would have been so unseaworthy in open Channel waters that they would have capsized if you so much as blew on them - Home Fleet could have literally destroyed the invasion force by steaming right through it at flank speed and letting them overturn in its wake. Sea Lion would start with the loss of over half the first wave to the Channel waters, with the landing being made piecemeal by disorganized forces against concentrated defenses just where the British wanted them to be, and any subsequent attempt would have been ripped to pieces. About the best you can say that would have happened is that the Germans would have done quite a bit of damage to Home Fleet as it sallied, but would have lost much of the committed Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe in the desperate fighting in the process.Sealion is kind of...oh, what's the term for it. I can't recall..
Amphibious landing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion Pretty much Germany's version of the D-Day landings at Normandy and the operations from there.
Culise, since you seen to know about the subject, how would a successful Sealion have influenced the North African war?Heh, not as much as most may think; I'm basically researching on the fly. To a degree, it depends on which part is successful - the landings (Sea Lion proper) or the follow-up conquest of the Isles. If the Home Isles have already fallen by 1941, North Africa becomes a critical pivot as far as morale is concerned in order to compensate for such a severe drubbing, and it's not like the reinforcements have anywhere else to go (except maybe Singapore or Port Moresby). If the Home Isles are still fighting hard, Operation Compass might never happen as reinforcements slated for Egypt instead go straight to (or never leave - the British actually sent quite a few tanks from home to Egypt) the Home Isles, or else it might occur with more limited aims (i.e., drive the Italians out of Egypt, but not to press as far as Tobruk). They also wouldn't be stripped for the operations in Greece, and without the complete collapse of Italian positions, Rommel never arrives with the Africa Corps. Indeed, even if Operation Compass went off exactly as historical, German manpower commitments to the invasion of Britain might also block reinforcement of the Italians. This is all in the near-term, mind you; extrapolating further is a bit trickier.
All of them. :P Let's see, they'd need a Kriegsmarine strong enough to fight off the Home Fleet and still maintain enough capability for massive shore bombardment to crack pillboxes and rip apart the Admiralty scaffolding, not to mention the amphibious assault capabilities of something ranking above that of a lead elephant. They'd need a Luftwaffe capable of outfighting the British over their own soil, which probably means the British need to lose the Home Chain and the Battle of the Beams, as well as many more fighter craft. They'd need to be able to put enough boots on the ground to secure a beachhead against the coastal crust defenses, not to mention a mobile response force that should have almost 500 tanks (Churchill's numbers, not Cranbourne's). The planned landing site for Sea Lion included a marsh that was already partially flooded intentionally to stymie inland advances, and could have been flooded even further should it ever materialize. With the British already dismantling ports and piers in the south, the Germans would also need their own equivalent to the Mulberry Harbors. Finally, I'd throw in some specialized tanks akin to Hobart's Funnies for anti-mine and amphibious capabilities. The problem is a lot of the Allied planning that went into D-Day was predicated on the tremendous failures at Dieppe. Just as you yourself say, Sea Lion is like an even more incompetent Dieppe, and unlike the Allies, Germany doesn't have the production capacity to do it twice, especially when (unlike the Allies) they're going whole-hog the first time. So, basically, all the goodies of 1944 Allies, their own pocket America-equivalent production-wise, as well as those four years of experience granted as precog. That's what they'd need. ^_^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion Pretty much Germany's version of the D-Day landings at Normandy and the operations from there.Except shitter. Disappointed they didn't try, it would've ended the war so much sooner. What if you go the Mythbusters approach though; what would it take for Sealion to work? How many flying tanks would the Germans have to conjure up from thin air?
From the article I linked: "In a decision that is difficult to understand, given that there was no heavy equipment for them to pull, the Germans decided to include over 4,000 horses in the first wave."At least they'll still have fresh meat once the Home Fleet cuts them off from resupply. ^_^
I dunno how to comment on that.
1. I think it belongs to the European Politics Megathread.Spoiler: All Russian (r)aid trucks should look like this (click to show/hide)
The engineers were nothing if not enthusiastic. They built rafts from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the barges being towed by the tugs, and that the horses would thus be transported across the Channel on these rafts, saving the difficulties of loading the horses into the barges. One wonders what the horses would have made of this concept.
More context from the same article that sergarr linked:No, you see, the Nazis clearly believed that their horses were the True Aryan Horses® and thus obviously superior to the low-class British breeds.QuoteThe engineers were nothing if not enthusiastic. They built rafts from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the barges being towed by the tugs, and that the horses would thus be transported across the Channel on these rafts, saving the difficulties of loading the horses into the barges. One wonders what the horses would have made of this concept.
Why not put the horses ON barges? lol
Honestly though, wouldn't have been easier to just steal british horses once they got onshore if they needed horses? I know there could be the language barrier since the horses wouldn't understand the commands, but that wouldn't be an insurmountable problem.
No, you see, the Nazis clearly believed that their horses were the True Aryan Horses® and thus obviously superior to the low-class British breeds.
Obviously.
Also, UR, France would never give their military fleet, nor their sailors, to the Germany. It was directly mentioned in the peace treaty, and the France has said that if Germans tried to capture the ships by force, they would sink all of them.For that matter, Germany tried, and France did. Operation Lila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon) was an utter fiasco - of over 100 surviving French ships, the Germans captured only 39, most of which had been sabotaged and/or already disarmed to serve as training hulks. Giving them even more ships (those that were historically destroyed at Mers-el-Kébir) to attempt to secure at the same time would have only resulted in even more hulls at the bottom of Toulon harbor.
* - You know, for how modernized and scary the German army was in WWII, it's odd how much of it was held together with proverbial duct tape and an indifferent shrug. Horses were heavily relied upon for transporting supplies, your average infantryman was using a rifle from 1891~... Heck, a good portion of the tanks that invaded France were training models and only equipped with machine guns. And most of the rest had problems damaging enemy tanks. Yeah, I know that most of these problems were due to lack of factory space, but... That just makes what they accomplished even more impressive.
I'm just waiting for Erkki to shoot you down.Indeed. As am I.
Why would the US declare war? Couldn't Japan makes an agreement with the Dutch for DEI oil?
I'm just thinking how much time the Japs would've bought themselves if they had taken PH. They would've gotten some loot from it certainly so I don't think supply would be that big of an issue initially, and once they clamped down on the islands they could've provided atleast some form of sustinence to the troops stationed there.
But what would most certainly happen is the US not having any staging ground to launch any kind of offensive in Asia without taking Hawaii first. That would've allowed the Japs pretty much free reign in the Pacific with only the Australians to try and stop them.
As for Japan not attacking Pearl Harbour... that too serves to shorten the war despite delaying its onset, by leaving the US with much greater strength in the area to strike with when Japan finally went one step too far.Not really. Pearl Harbour was more of a moral victory. The Battleships, which constituted the majority of the losses, where mostly useless at this point in history.
Why would the US declare war? Couldn't Japan makes an agreement with the Dutch for DEI oil?
Maybe too soon, but what if Ukrainian troops had shot the little green men in Crimea?The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs would issue a press release expressing Russia's concerns over the escalating conflict in Ukraine and once again stating Russia's commitment to maintaining friendly relations with its Western partners.
Back to a US invasion of Europe, what would be the US's answer to fighting in European cities? Windy, labyrinthine cities whose only guides travel in the black cabs of mysterious path sages?Depends on what do US want from European cities.
Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII? I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.
Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII?Bomb everything with air strikes and artillery? Possible I guess, but not a full solution.
I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.
US Tactics when meeting EU cities? Simple. Bomb the crap outta them from the air. Use armour and mechanised infantry with close air support to take main road nodes and form an encirclement. Follow up with lots of artilliery, then on vehicle yomp to city centres, or on foot where vehicles can not go. A horrible, horrible fucking bloodbath on both sides. This assumes the need to take them, and that investing in a siege is off the table.Yeah, have fun trying to drive any armour through the ruins of a European city whilst under attack from enemy airpower and ground forces. Cars have difficulty navigating these streets at their most pristine and efficient, a determined defender with armour, barricades and fortifications of their own? There'd be an anti-tank weapon behind every window, or close enough. Stalingrad 2 electric boogaloo.
Stalingrad 2 electric boogaloo.This. Also, many Europeans already loathe the US with a passion; in case of a US attack, the American soldiers would have to deal with a massive guerilla movement as well as Europe's proper military forces.
Maybe use the tactics developed in WWII?Bomb everything with air strikes and artillery? Possible I guess, but not a full solution.I don't know how labrynthine the cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan are, but urban warfare is still urban warfare.Bagdhad's not as neat of a grid as many American cities are, but they're still rather neat.Spoiler (click to show/hide)Then you get cities like Paris where you should basically just kill yourself already.Spoiler (click to show/hide)A look at London that's all over the fucking place.Spoiler (click to show/hide)Berlin ruins the combo by having a neat city. Casuals.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The vast series of underground tunnels, metros, sewers and WWII bunkers are also not to be forgotten.
currently contested between vegetables and jacketsYou made my day
The city has experience of being an arena for urban combat - it was almost completely destroyed during the onslaught of very civilized Eurointegrators in the 1940s.
Hey!
The city has experience of being an arena for urban combat - it was almost completely destroyed during the onslaught of very civilized Eurointegrators in the 1940s.
I should note that large areas of the city were destroyed by the fires caused by Nazi German air raids on the 24th of June 1941.QuoteThe city has experience of being an arena for urban combat - it was almost completely destroyed during the onslaught of very civilized Eurointegrators in the 1940s.
Well, most damage was done by Red Army when they recaptured Minsk.
I cant for the life of me figure out why you'd want to fight for a single city. So much easier to just hit any military targets from outside and move on to the next city without waiting for surrender.Don't underestimate pride and symbolism. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean its going to be carried out. The pride of a person could lead him to want to capture this or that. Also if you don't occupy the cities they may become havens for the remnants of defeated armies. Also a cities fall can be a symbol that a country is losing and may lower morale.
There's a good argument to be made that Hitler went for Stalingrad mostly because it carried Stalin's name. Not that it wasn't of strategic importance as well, but that alone wouldn't have justified makinng the city the slaughterhouse it became.I cant for the life of me figure out why you'd want to fight for a single city. So much easier to just hit any military targets from outside and move on to the next city without waiting for surrender.Don't underestimate pride and symbolism. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean its going to be carried out. The pride of a person could lead him to want to capture this or that.
It also helped that Germans have never really improved on their tactics coined during the conquest of Poland and France, while Russians were catching up pretty quickly in military tactics and strategy.German army at Stalingrad got all problems from the fact that it flanks were guarded by Hungarians, Romanians and Italians with their inferior training and equipment
The Stalingrad battle is notable also because an entire German's 6th army has been encircled and subsequently defeated as a direct result of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Weakness_on_the_German_flanksIt also helped that Germans have never really improved on their tactics coined during the conquest of Poland and France, while Russians were catching up pretty quickly in military tactics and strategy.German army at Stalingrad got all problems from the fact that it flanks were guarded by Hungarians, Romanians and Italians with their inferior training and equipment
The Stalingrad battle is notable also because an entire German's 6th army has been encircled and subsequently defeated as a direct result of it.
More tanks near our border? Great, we don't have to go across half the world to destroy them! :)I think it is a great "success" for Russian diplomacy to get tanks right near his borders. No one bothered to place serious forces in Baltic StatesSpoiler: I guess there are will be no green men in Estonia (click to show/hide)
In addition, that was the M1A1 versus early soviet tanks. T-55, T-62, and just a few T-72's.
ie, the most modern Iraqi tank was still 15 years older than the US tanks involved.
Dude, just recently 30 000 Iraqi troops with Abrams tanks and all that US shit were routed by 800 ISIS fighters armed with AK-s.
Iraqi troops are always worse than Russian ones. They also used the "export versions" of Russian tanks, which were intentionally downgraded.
For one, they didn't have the advanced fire control systems, which modern Russians tanks have.
Also, who said tanks will be fighting tanks? The Abrams are going to mostly fight infantry armed with anti-tank weapons (modern anti-tank weapons are quite capable of piercing the side of the Abrams FYI). With the desert style camo the Abrams tanks are going to be spotted from very far.
In addition, that was the M1A1 versus early soviet tanks. T-55, T-62, and just a few T-72's.The Soviet tanks in Iraqi arsenal were downgraded, inferior export versions - they wouldn't even win against their counterparts from the USSR.
ie, the most modern Iraqi tank was still 15 years older than the US tanks involved.
The Abrams are going to mostly fight infantry armed with anti-tank weapons (modern anti-tank weapons are quite capable of piercing the side of the Abrams FYI). With the desert style camo the Abrams tanks are going to be spotted from very far.(http://i.imgur.com/kvAG7RS.jpg)
Oh, that downgraded export version myth again....Yes, they existed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipment) Soviet Union never sent its top of the line military equipment to volatile Third World countries, where they could easily fall into the hands of American intelligence operatives.
How many not downgraded T-72 and T-80s Chechens destroyed in Grozny?I've said that before and I'll say it again: Russian losses during the disastrous attempt at storming Grozny on the New Year's Eve of 1995 weren't caused by the extreme inferiority of the tanks themselves.
I know you'll say that Abrams would fare no better. But we both know that is untrue.It depends on which RPG you would use. Old RPG-7 wouldn't fare much against Abrams tanks, but the newer RPG-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29) would easily penetrate its armour. Iraqi insurgents successfully used them against American (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845) and British tanks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html) - unfortunately for them, they had very few RPG-29s. Israeli Merkava tanks were also no match against Hezbollah militants with RPG-29s in Lebanon. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/hezbollah-anti-tank-fire-causing-most-idf-casualties-in-lebanon-1.194528)
These are Bradley APCs, not tanks, and just like UR said, it isn't too hard to repaint them.These tanks do not appear to have the appropriate camo.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've said that before and I'll say it again: Russian losses during the disastrous attempt at storming Grozny on the New Year's Eve of 1995 weren't caused by the extreme inferiority of the tanks themselves.Exactly. Effectiveness of a tank comes not from on paper data but from many factors.
Maskhadov & Co. should have declared the entire Russian General Staff heroes of Ichkeria - sending tanks and APC without infantry support in a city full of militants with RPGs was a suicidal move showing the incompetence of Russian generals.
The same T-72 and T-80 tanks also participated in the Second Chechen War against the same Chechens with the same RPGs - the Russian Army didn't lose several hundred tanks and APCs like in 1995. If they were so inferior, why did the Chechens fail to destroy them as easily as in the previous war?
Also, here's another example - 8-9 August 2008, South Ossetia. South Ossetian and Russian troops defended Tskhinvali against the Georgian assault. Both Georgians and Russians had T-72 tanks, which were used during urban combat. T-72s didn't prove themselves as vulnerable as in 1995's Grozny. I wonder why...
Russian tractors are the most peaceful tractors in the world :DA proud tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leichttraktor), indeed. ^_^
Oh found who makes Russian tank engines. Chelyabinsk tractor plant.... Sure. Great quality is expected :DQuite well. Tractor and tank engines actually have a significant amount of overlap in production requirements - they need to be robust enough to take a beating, easy to maintain in rural or difficult-to-reach areas, capable of hauling large amounts of mass (whether armor or farm equipment), and operating on fairly rough terrain, including mud. In fact, just as you say, Perkins Engines is another company that produces tractor engines (as well as regular automotive diesel), while MTU Friedrichshafen (Maybach) manufactures...
How can you compare that to Maybah that produces Leopard II engines or Perkins Engines(Caterpillar subsidiary) that makes engines for British tanks or Lycoming_Engines who designed engines for Abrams?
...agriculture, mining and construction equipment......oh, even more tractors. Let's face it, tank engines are pretty sexy and government contracts rather nice windfalls when they come along, but when push comes to shove, agriculture's a pretty stable market for heavy-hauling diesel engines. Lycoming's the only exception, but that's because the Abrams design specs were all sorts of odd in the first place - Lycoming does trains and jets normally, with the only major exception being the Abrams. In fact, the Abrams was basically designed around two things: its engine and the concept of American logistical supremacy. I don't recall any other gas-turbine tank engines at all off the top of my head, and it gives the thing a thermal signature from Hell and a terrible fuel-efficiency (when it takes 10 gallons/38 L of fuel to start the engine and 1.7 gal/6.3 L of fuel burned per single mile traveled, there's an issue), but that's the price of a near-silent high-speed engine that can eat everything from JP-8 jet fuel (the US standard for everything from airplanes and tanks to cookstoves and heaters) to diesel or kerosene.
I don't recall any other gas-turbine tank enginesSoviet T-80. In fact it was the first mass produced tank in the world with a gas-turbine engine.
Lycoming's the only exception, but that's because the Abrams design specs were all sorts of odd in the first place - Lycoming does trains and jets normally, with the only major exception being the Abrams. In fact, the Abrams was basically designed around two things: its engine and the concept of American logistical supremacy. I don't recall any other gas-turbine tank engines at all off the top of my head, and it gives the thing a thermal signature from Hell and a terrible fuel-efficiency (when it takes 10 gallons/38 L of fuel to start the engine and 1.7 gal/6.3 L of fuel burned per single mile traveled, there's an issue), but that's the price of a near-silent high-speed engine that can eat everything from JP-8 jet fuel (the US standard for everything from airplanes and tanks to cookstoves and heaters) to diesel or kerosene.
German tractors have much better engines than Russian tractors.(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
German tractors have much better engines than Russian tractors.-citation needed pic-
Soviets sold much more tanks abroad than US => Soviet had better tank engines.German tractors have much better engines than Russian tractors.-citation needed pic-
Who sells more tractors abroad, Germans or Russians?
Of course, this tractor is not equal to European tractors but if we take the price/quality ratio, I think your tractor is very good.
Ah, I did forget that tank's engine as well. Odd, that...QuoteI don't recall any other gas-turbine tank enginesSoviet T-80. In fact it was the first mass produced tank in the world with a gas-turbine engine.
_________________
I think you are missing my point. It is absolutely logical that same companies that produce diesel engines for agriculture, mining or construction vehicles produce engines for tanks.
But quality differs. German tractors have much better engines than Russian tractors. My assumption that it is same for Leopard II and T-90 engines
Yeah, but on what facts do you base your assumptions that russians will produce shittier engines and tanks compared to the west? Because they're just russians? That makes no sense honestly.He's Ukrainian.
And if we're going to take the price into assesing the quality of these tanks than the Russians can by all means field more of their slightly inferior tanks in which case the tables are pretty much equal.
China exports a lot of things into other markets.
Does that means that their goods are better than the counterparts from the other countries?
In short, at a somewhat comparable technological level:China exports a lot of things into other markets.
Does that means that their goods are better than the counterparts from the other countries?
Define better.
Cheaper could be better.
As the Red Army says - quantity is a quality all of its own.
Though, do remember that superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, a geometric effect on overall military strength. Well-trained, well-equipped troops can stand up to many more times their lesser brethren than linear arithmetic would seem to indicate.
:P
China exports a lot of things into other markets.In their price category: Yep. Absolutely.
Does that means that their goods are better than the counterparts from the other countries?
There's also the fact that most of the countries that would buy russian tanks can now either afford to develop and build their own or buy the pricier western ones.And that is what they do, no?
In short, at a somewhat comparable technological level:China exports a lot of things into other markets.
Does that means that their goods are better than the counterparts from the other countries?
Define better.
Cheaper could be better.
As the Red Army says - quantity is a quality all of its own.
Though, do remember that superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, a geometric effect on overall military strength. Well-trained, well-equipped troops can stand up to many more times their lesser brethren than linear arithmetic would seem to indicate.
:P
Advantage in morale > advantage in organization > advantage in logistics > advantage in equipment.
You can see what happens when an army lacks morale and organization in Iraq. They had superior logistics and superior equipment, but all these things are useless without morale and organization to back it up. Thus, they lost against ISIS, horribly.
That, and it is hard to fight against someone who is willing to die for their cause, and as such has no regard for self preservation in combat
Can you name Russian brand as successful as Lenovo or Huawei? Why can't Putin, supreme lord and great ruler, organize anything of that level?90s m8
I'd say a warrior is someone who has the willingness to fight for something they believe in, or for someone or something they want to protect and is willing to do that regardless of wether they recieve any help or not.
Esentially, I'd call a father taking up arms to protect his family a warrior. He doesn't need to have training, just the willingness.
A solider on the other hand would be someone who fights because they are trained to do so and have been told to fight, their beliefs do not enter the equation here. If they do then they are poor soliders (which is not to say they are poor humans, just shit at doing their job).
Also who the fuck is Baibars?
Wikipedia says Baibars was a Mamluk/Egyptian/Islamic leader who fought against the Crusaders and the Mongols, to some degree of success.Completely wrecked the Crusaders and the Mongolians and taunted his enemies with ruthless ability.
I would be rather amused by a protagonist warrior charging into a formation of soldiers and just getting absolutely wrecked. Might make for a short story though.
But what kind of end would a story about faceless mooks have?300 Stormtroopers: The story of the tragic loss of a unit.
It should have some profound and deep meaning, to be eligible for drama rewards.
They aren't faceless mooks, but plenty of stories have soldier protagonists who wipe the floor with their warrior enemies through discipline and qualitative superiority. Unlike pisskop, I'd actually argue it's a bigger sci-fi staple than the opposite case (with a few prominent exceptions, such as Star Wars), since humans tend to fight as soldiers when contrasted with warrior races (from Klingon to Kzinti) in part because they view it as a craft instead of a cultural imperative. Aliens that tend to be more unified and disciplined than humans tend to also be portrayed as, well, dehumanizing, ranging from strict and authoritarian on up to outright malevolent hive-mind.I would be rather amused by a protagonist warrior charging into a formation of soldiers and just getting absolutely wrecked. Might make for a short story though.
Nah, we just have to make the faceless mooks the protagonists, instead of an improbably successful lone gunman. That's not something you see too much of though, outside of mostly terrible Star Wars fan fiction.
There's a good argument to be made that Hitler went for Stalingrad mostly because it carried Stalin's name. Not that it wasn't of strategic importance as well, but that alone wouldn't have justified makinng the city the slaughterhouse it became.Rereading the thread, this caught my eye a second time more than the first. Thinking about it, Hitler did do a lot of awful shite bad calls in war for the purpose of propaganda. The hilarious waste of resources that was the occupied channel islands come to mind, Hitler spent a 1/5th of the resources he sent towards building the atlantic wall towards what surmounted to building Fortresses on British soil for the sole reason that it was British soil. The man loved the image and lost the bigger picture.
It would be wiser if the Swiss are goaded to attack.Invading the Swiss is about as likely to result in success as invading Afghanistan or Texas. Likewise, trying to goad the Swiss into leaving their mountains is about as likely to result in success as making a Texan leave Texas.
In fact, you can actually declare war, maintain blockade, and do nothing. No drafts, nothing whatsoever, just make sure that no swiss watch can leave their lands, no millionaires can enter their lands, and telephone lines - thus SWIFT - is cut. They have to surrender sooner or later.
Regardless, my point on Monaco and BVI still stands. Monaco, for example, if France cooperates should fall in 1 hour.
"To make a long story short, McPhee describes two things: how Switzerland requires military service from every able-bodied male Swiss citizen—a model later emulated and expanded by Israel—and how the Swiss military has, in effect, wired the entire country to blow in the event of foreign invasion. To keep enemy armies out, bridges will be dynamited and, whenever possible, deliberately collapsed onto other roads and bridges below; hills have been weaponized to be activated as valley-sweeping artificial landslides; mountain tunnels will be sealed from within to act as nuclear-proof air raid shelters; and much more.It wouldn't be a bloodless war, it'd be the bloodiest war of this century. You can't even nuke the Swiss into submission!
To interrupt the utility of bridges, tunnels, highways, railroads, Switzerland has established three thousand points of demolition. That is the number officially printed. It has been suggested to me that to approximate a true figure a reader ought to multiply by two. Where a highway bridge crosses a railroad, a segment of the bridge is programmed to drop on the railroad. Primacord fuses are built into the bridge. Hidden artillery is in place on either side, set to prevent the enemy from clearing or repairing the damage.THEIR COUNTRY IS A GIANT SELF DESTRUCT MECHANISM
Near the German border of Switzerland, every railroad and highway tunnel has been prepared to pinch shut explosively. Nearby mountains have been made so porous that whole divisions can fit inside them. There are weapons and soldiers under barns. There are cannons inside pretty houses. Where Swiss highways happen to run on narrow ground between the edges of lakes and to the bottoms of cliffs, man-made rockslides are ready to slide.I'm getting real neutral about this shit
The impending self-demolition of the country is "routinely practiced," McPhee writes. "Often, in such assignments, the civilian engineer who created the bridge will, in his capacity as a military officer, be given the task of planning its destruction."
Describing titanic underground fortresses—"networks of tunnels, caverns, bunkers, and surface installations, each spread through many tens of square miles"—McPhee briefly relates the story of a military reconnaissance mission on which he was able to tag along, involving a hydroelectric power station built inside a mountain, accessible by ladders and stairs; the battalion tasked with climbing down into it thus learns "that if a company of soldiers had to do it they could climb the mountain on the inside."Fuck it, they've literally made Dwarf Fortress real (http://bldgblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/various-forms-of-lithic-disguise.html).
They didn't have radios. The Germans did.
Thus they looked for problems at the tactical level. France didn't suck at fighting5 gears backwards, 1 gear forward in case the enemy attacks from rear, white flags as standard equipment... yeah.
It's a running joke about French rifles having excellent resell value, as they've never been fired and only been dropped onceThus they looked for problems at the tactical level. France didn't suck at fighting5 gears backwards, 1 gear forward in case the enemy attacks from rear, white flags as standard equipment... yeah.
Plus you can look at the French rearguard where their fighting was fierce enough to buy the BEF enough time to escape at Dunkirk. They were proven fighters, but could not exactly work miracles
Actually the main reason for the BEF to escape at Dunkirk was Hitler deciding to send the Luftwaffe to bomb the evacuation ships and dunkirk instead of sending in his Tank Divisions.
Meanwhile Rommel was praised as a genius for proving an excellent case of how failure inevitably comes to those who ignore the maxim "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" by repeatedly ignoring direct instructions from Hitler to stop wasting precious oil.I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF PANZERS ROLLING ALL OVER THE WORLD, I LITERALLY CAN'T HEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE KING TIGERS AND THEY GUZZLE ONE LITER PER 400 METERS, BUT THANKFULLY GERMAN ARMY HAS ENOUGH FUEL BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL OVER BAGHDAD RIGHT NOW THANKS TO ROMMEL NOT GIVING A SHIT ABOUT ORDERS!
Actually the main reason for the BEF to escape at Dunkirk was Hitler deciding to send the Luftwaffe to bomb the evacuation ships and dunkirk instead of sending in his Tank Divisions.
Because sending unsupported tank divisions against the largest massed concentration of anti-tank guns in history so far, with support from battleship bombardment, would have gone fantastically.
German generals liked to blame Hitler for every failure once the dust settled. He made a convenient scapegoat.
b) those tank divisions were sitting around dunkirk the entire time during the cities bombardement. Its not like they were held up. They just sat around on orders of Adolf.
Now as for Rommel, you might argue he thought for strategically useless targets but the fact is that germany should have mabye invested more troops in africa.
propably only find that you are right :P
Meh, i don't think at that point that Dunkirk was even remotely close to holding out for another week.
Those troops there weren't orderly retreating anymore they were fleeing the theater headlong.
MAINIAC GROWS STRONGER ON YOUR CONCESSIONS
Hitler goes Super Aryan and obliterates them...
Seriously, supposedly the Germans halted the attack because they were concerned about running out of supplies & wanted the logistics to catch up. Plus Goering wanted to be cool and use his Lutwaffe to beat the British and thus they escaped because... Goering (Okay not really). Lets say the German commander on the ground Gerd von Rundstedt was more aggressive and kept up the attack, and managed to make an evacuation too difficult leading the BEF to surrender.
I would say the British would probably keep fighting ,but would be in a worse position with alot of soldiers and experienced officers neutralized. I think Britain would become more paranoid of defending the Home Islands, and could very possibly have lost control of North Africa, because instead of just replacing war material lost they would have to train & equip entirely new units.QuoteNope. If von Rundstedt kept up the attack, he would have had his face kicked in and failed to stop the evacuation.
The Germans had outrun their logistics; they were low on fuel and ammo, but they were also low on spare parts, and a of of their vehicles were on the verge of becoming mechanical casualties. Early war tanks were not fantastically reliable. On top of that, they didn't have much in the way of things like artillery support, because they'd outrun that as well. The British, in contrast, had fallen back onto their supply lines, so they were well supplied with everything, on top of potential naval support and air support from the other side of the channel if things got dire enough.
Dunkirk itself was terrible tank country, being surrounded by boggy ground and protected along much of the outside of town by a large canal. The British had so many troops trapped there that they could afford to be strong everywhere; there was nowhere to outflank them, the only way in was a direct frontal assault. Dug in around the perimeter were several hundred QF 3.7" AA guns, the British answer to the German FlaK 88. Those weren't suitable for AT use in the field, like the 88, because they were heavier and the carriages weren't really well designed for it, but in a situation where they wouldn't have to be moved, they were just as deadly. Any German armoured attack would have ended up literally bogged down, in the open, right in the sights of all of those guns, and then they would have reached the canal and been unable to cross. It was, really, an incredibly strong defensive position, and the British were evacuating troops from there even before von Rundstedt halted.
The only way to swing it is for the British to surrender on account of the 'hopeless' situation, which isn't exactly inconceivable (they did it at Singapore, for example, despite being in a much stronger position relative to the Japanese invasion force). The BEF actually being destroyed militarily by the German forces facing it at that point is unlikely in the extreme.
Just reading about the whole Dunkirk evacuations and would like to point out that the French actually did a heroic job of keeping the germans at bay.Perhaps the roughest ones were the Brits chosen for the rearguard. 1 in 8 were told they'd not be going home... One way or another.
China's unlikely to invade India, even over Kashmir. Pakistan maybe, but nukes make things a spicy situation. Though in the event of an invasion how would Pakistan or China win?You are correct that China has no reason to start a fight over Kashmir; China already has all of Kashmir (specifically, the region administered as Aksai Chin) that they actually want/need, and only India contests that. The major site of conflict between China and India today is the region between the de jure border and the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh, which is also Chinese-occupied but has recently become more of a point of contention. That said, the fact that these in my opinion are the closest potential shots at getting into a full shooting war India has, however, should suggest how likely it is to me that India will get into a full shooting war. ;)
In India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.
No, that part isn't a thing; that's in fact what they expect. The "thing" is that India only actually has enough for half that at the most in spite of their planning, which means that there is an unfortunate gap of 20-30 days (depending on weapon) where they won't have anything to fire between the point where their pre-war supplies run out and purchases from other countries arrive and combine with an increase in internal production to make up the difference. Mind you, it still seems like a tempest in a teacup to me, but that is the "thing", insofar as it is a thing. :PQuoteIn India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.
This isn't a thing. A modern, conventional war burns expendables much faster than a country is going to be able to produce.
QuoteIn India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.
This isn't a thing. A modern, conventional war burns expendables much faster than a country is going to be able to produce.
I say we take this discussion to the Armchair General (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141793.msg6738454#msg6738454) thread and really pull it to pieces there.
Well what would happen in a large scale war is:Has any war ever been won via decapitation? That is to say, the enemy deliberately managing to destroy their opponent's "HQ"? The only close example I can think of is fictional, from the comic Über (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_%28comics%29), when-
One side would get air superiority- the other side would have their HQ destroyed|
To prevent that, they'd have to have a non-readily-discernable base.
Ergo, guerrilla warfare.
Three million bakers' sons with rifles and hats are no longer useful, since an enemy with proper equipment could field assets they are legitimately incapable of disabling.https://youtu.be/jzihQE1O27g?t=1m36s
The British regulars [in World War 1] were a paid, professional army of well-trained and very often battle-experienced soldiers; no conscription. Now there is really...no question, in my mind, at least, that the British professionals were the best soldiers in the world at the outbreak of the war, but, there weren't that many of them. There were around 100,000 of them against, for starters, a couple million German conscripts, right? By the end of 1914, that professional, British army, was no more. It was replaced by volunteers, and eventually conscripts- [...] See the British had relied on that small, very well-trained army [...] and this, did not work so well in mainland Europe.
Amp said "no longer useful". Pointing out that it was very useful 100 years ago doesn't disprove his point.
Amp said "no longer useful". Pointing out that it was very useful 100 years ago doesn't disprove his point.
These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure. Professional soldiers take time to train, more time than you get when rotating people through every year.
These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.*cough* Israel *cough*
Has any war ever been won via decapitation?
And no one was compared to Hitler ever again. :PHas any war ever been won via decapitation?The defeat of the Godwins.
France in 1940? Pocketing and cutting off most of the enemy's military might isnt usually count as decapitation. :P
I'd have to quibble over the Chinese Civil War. The Xi'an Incident gave the CCP some much-needed breathing room, but it didn't win the war.
And no one was compared to Hitler ever again. :P
But they lost Paris and waved a white flag while places like Maginot Line should have held out waaaaaaay longer.
"to a lesser extent". The confusion and inaction of the allies after the German exploitation of their rear areas is what created the channel pocket in the first place.
So the original argument was: is massed infantry a dying breed?
To disprove that statement, you'd have to say that on the whole it is more effective than the combination of armor, air, and sea, special forces and other technologies.
I feel like even in the modern military the general infantry are relegated to peacekeeping work. They're there to fortify and staff a base so that other units can deploy from it.
(Or maybe that's just because 'chatting with the locals' is all the media seems to show)
These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.*cough* Israel *cough*
The problem is that people somehow think a conscript army *must* be worse in training than a professional army simply because most examples of conscription in public parlance include the Vietnam War draft (the unwilling led by the unqualified commanded by the unknowing to "protect" the ungrateful), as well as various African, Latin American, and Arab countries, none of which inspire thoughts of military competence. Israel is a valid demonstration of the counterexample. Hopefully, South Korea will never need to prove likewise as well, but it is another potential counterexample with a professional core to be bolstered by mass conscription. The Swiss are yet another.These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.*cough* Israel *cough*
That isn't the issue Amp is suggesting though, as far as I can tell. A better trained force can be overwhelmed with numbers, because the trained soldiers are irreplaceable. A better equipped army is much harder, since not only are they presumably running a better casualty ratio, their casualties are as replaceable as the enemy's.That's true. The better equipped force is going to win. There are exceptions, but they are certainly not the rule.
And quite aside from that, I am skeptical that we will see total war until a nation develops a near-perfect missile shield.
And if we do, I still don't see huge numbers of infantry being deployed because of massively superior force multipliers. WWI was a century ago - it's difficult to quantify how relevant data from that era is to the current era, but it's probably safe to say that it's nowhere near a perfect comparison.
-snip-^^This. Motivation is another factor that's hard to quantify, but a proud force is a tough force. I'm not saying it's a replacement for training though.
Hmm, I think you didnt comment on the professional army debate. More on topic, I think infantry is still powerful and cost effective in various environments. Mobility is just so important that they move on wheels these days. It could be a bit of a misconception from movies and other media that infantry has died out somehow; there never was so much of it in the first place in WW1 or 2 either. When the US Army fought in Europe, infantry was in the minority, only 15% or so of men were in it. Maybe its just difficult to make a movie about people who just tow a gun around the countryside and reload it, or cook, or drive a truck, or maintain aircraft. :)Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.
To disprove that statement, you'd have to say that on the whole it is more effective than the combination of armor, air, and sea, special forces and other technologies.Is armor more effective on its own than a combination of air, sea, and infantry forces? No, because no one leaves behind their air/sea/armor/infantry assets when they fight a war.
Persia twice, once when Alexander the Great killed the emperor, once when Muhammad's army did. The battle of Manzinkert. The conquest of Constantinople in the 3rd crusade. Cortez and Pizarro both used it to great effect. The defeat of the Godwins. The Peoples Republic of China would have never taken over China if they hadn't kidnapped the Chinese president in 1936. The battle of San Jacinto won the Texan revolution in one clean sweep. The German invasion of France in 1940 to a lesser extent.Good examples.
Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number of tasks possible.Related: I saw a nice video on British PMCs in Afghanistan. The Ghurkas who were training Afghan recruits had been working for a few weeks and were very, very frustrated with their progress.
You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.
Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.
Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number of tasks possible.
You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.
About 2.5 million over the course of more than 10 years. Not a lot of them saw action, but they were line infantry and they were there in great numbers.QuoteWell I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.
Out of how many deployed in total?
What are the requirements for that badge?
Any way, Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly kind of "peacekeeping" operations with a much weaker, guerrilla enemy(after the first weeks in Iraq) and relatively little heavy equipment used. The sides were asymmetric; they were completely different kind of conflicts than, say, the one US and NATO prepared to fight in Europe for half a decade.
QuoteWell I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.
Out of how many deployed in total? What are the requirements for that badge? Any way, Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly kind of "peacekeeping" operations with a much weaker, guerrilla enemy(after the first weeks in Iraq) and relatively little heavy equipment used. The sides were asymmetric; they were completely different kind of conflicts than, say, the one US and NATO prepared to fight in Europe for half a decade.Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number of tasks possible.
You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.
It doesn't take quite a full year for the Joe Average to become an adequate(standards may very?) infantryman or some non super difficult support role man? A year for leaders and more advanced stuff perhaps.
Lancaster laws start to apply
*Lanchester lawsLancaster laws start to apply
Lancaster laws never even applied to battleships, let alone ground combat. The variance out outcomes is way too high plus there is tons of autocorrelation.
No. Not just no, but hell no. Joe shows up out if OSUT and he's still pretty much completely useless. If you're *really* lucky, he might have learned enough to learn, but that's questionable, especially these days.
People say "it was a peacekeeping operation" like folks didn't suffer, fight, and die in that war. Forget the politics. To me the phrase belittles the actions of those men who did their best to keep one another alive out there.
I've been making that mistake for years. :oSame here, so you're not alone. >_<
No. Not just no, but hell no. Joe shows up out if OSUT and he's still pretty much completely useless. If you're *really* lucky, he might have learned enough to learn, but that's questionable, especially these days.
You and a great many of worlds militaries have a very different opinion on what is enough of training then... Or the material you have trained has been sub par somehow.
Perhaps in the big picture it isnt overly useful it is to give very advanced training to most infantry.
Conscription isn't going to make it cheaper to ship supplies around the world. It isn't going to make precision munitions cheaper. It isn't going to reduce legacy healthcare costs for soldiers (to the contrary it will make them balloon.)
No missiles in that figure, but should one really need those anti guerrilla warfare other than for lack of better tools?
Why would conscription make legacy healthcare costs balloon?
No missiles in that figure, but should one really need those anti guerrilla warfare other than for lack of better tools?
Conscription is going to reduce the need for indirect fire? I dont think that would be a really popular strategy.Quote
Not what I said again. I was thinking about hunting Talibans in the mountains with attack helicopters and jets.
Why would conscription make legacy healthcare costs balloon?
More soldiers=more vets getting healthcare benefits.
edit: Hmm, I think you didnt comment on the professional army debate.I did, however I was playing with the original argument in the thread before we sent the discussion this way.
I did, however I was playing with the original argument in the thread before we sent the discussion this way.
However in the same sense that foxholes were the 'fix' to the overpowered tank push, there's so many different things which could end the work of conscripts, and most of those would require surgical strikes.
I'm not saying that one Special forces soldier could rout a company (although it's happened before), but for things like gaining air superiority, decapitating the army or sighting in long-range bombardment - all things which are less force multipliers and more battlefield control - you'd rather trust the small, elite force to do it.
It matters quite an lot, actually. Both the odds of being bracketed by that artillery, surviving it, surviving it and still able to complete a mission. Much less the counter battery work.I always wondered how this "every soldier has a same chance to die from an artillery strike" myth was formed. I think it is because people tend to overestimate effectiveness of artillery.
Again, it depends on what kind of training your conscripts get (At one extreme, conscripted legionaries served 20 years), and what the alternative is. The US got the luxury of having two oceans between it an any threat, so it can take its time creating a proffessional army if needed. If Finland is attacked, it would at most have a few weeks to react.
Rather, not every soldier has the same chance to end up under a barrage. Artillery is pretty darn effective, when it shoots the right location. In Ukraine it continues to create 80%+ of casualties, as since 1914 at least or so. You just don't want to end be at the receiving end.There are huge difference in causalities when same artillery strikes properly prepared positions made by professional soldiers and when it strikes a crowd of armed civilians in open field.
Against third-rate artillery, maybe. Modern artillery, with time-on-target and guided munitions, will make a mincemeat out of everyone who has been hit, regardless of prepared positions and professionalism of troops.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremer_wall
Guided munitions are only issued in limited numbers. The vast majority of shells in the inventories of the world powers are still good old-fashioned high explosive.Surely it can be said that in a first-world-on-first-world situation either side would be sure to have lots and lots available. I mean a shower of dumb bombs has it's uses since in an army versus army situation you don't have to worry about collateral, but I don't doubt everyone would have as many precision bombs and shells handy as they could get their hands on in order to take out snipers, armored vehicles, and infantry in cover.
Guided munitions are only issued in limited numbers. The vast majority of shells in the inventories of the world powers and fired on the battlefields they're involved in are still good old-fashioned high explosive. Besides, guided shells are primarily intended for use against vehicles.Unguided shells are mostly useless. Guided shells and, generally, guided munitions are so much more effective at their jobs that everyone who can use them, uses them. ATGM missiles in Syria are used against infantry on a regular basis, and that's among a third-rate military. A first-rate military would use (and uses - look at how modern NATO fights) significantly more guided munitions than unguided ones, because firing unguided munitions is literally a waste of time and manpower, when you have guided munitions available.
Unguided shells are mostly useless.Maybe in the context of a war against insurgents. In a modern war they can be very useful against indiscriminate targets, like motor pools, warehouses, enemy encampments, and large enemy formations, where missing by 50 meters doesn't matter so much. They are also much, much easier on your wallet. Unguided shells are dirt cheap compared to the guided munitions.
Actually it's in reverse - unguided shells are only useful against insurgents, which have insignificant forces and thus are unable to suppress or destroy either the launching devices or the supply lines.Unguided shells are mostly useless.Maybe in the context of a war against insurgents. In a modern war they can be very useful against indiscriminate targets, like motor pools, warehouses, enemy encampments, and large enemy formations, where missing by 50 meters doesn't matter so much. They are also much, much easier on your wallet. Unguided shells are dirt cheap compared to the guided munitions.
Yeah, but they're out of range of bullets because you have allied infantrymen keeping the enemy out of range. The all-artillery scheme Tack is proposing might work in a few RTS, but is otherwise crap.
Actually it's in reverse - unguided shells are only useful against insurgents, which have insignificant forces and thus are unable to suppress or destroy either the launching devices or the supply lines.You're wrong. Insurgents are very small targets mixed in among things you don't want to destroy. Guided munitions get used way more than unguided munitions in the wars against insurgents.
Against a modern opponent, you won't be able to fire much more of unguided munitions than guided ones, before you get your unguided shell storage facilities destroyed by a precise-guided bomb or a drone-fired missile, or get your artillery wrecked by enemy's guided shells landing right on top of your artillery battalions. After that, it's just a matter of time until the rest of your forces is fixed by the enemy's heavy mechanized formations and destroyed completely by unerring deadly fire.
Like, why do you think all modern militaries invest in guided/precise/network-based stuff so hard? It's because it counters everything else. Just like stealth does. That's why Russian military is investing so hard in acquiring all of these things, you know.
You're wrong. Insurgents are very small targets mixed in among things you don't want to destroy. Guided munitions get used way more than unguided munitions in the wars against insurgents.The fact "guided munitions get used way more than unguided munitions in the wars against insurgents" doesn't imply "unguided munitions are useful against non-insurgents", so you need a better argument than that to negate my proposition of "unguided munitions are useful only against insurgents".
Not so. The enemy needs eyes on in order to employ guided munitions, and a modern force can actually prevent you from carrying out recce on him, unlike insurgents, who have inadequate AA and QRF capabilities. You forget that in this context the enemy has the same equipment as you do. I don't see how you could manage to locate the enemy's "unguided shell storage" seeing as that's his rear echelon, and he no doubt has many AA assets in that area preventing you from spotting it with air assets, and good luck getting a foot probe in there when he has UAVs equipped with FPR and IR. And if artillery is in range of his rear echelon then he has bigger problems since that means his front line has already been run over by your line units.1) Ever heard of spy satellites? Can't really hide something as big as a shell storage facility from them - given the large traffic near it, that's required for it to actually function as distributor of unguided shells.
They are not invincible assets. Not only are there ways to stop these assets from being put into use (JDAM platforms have a much longer range than artillery which is comparatively short-ranged and cumbersome, but jets can be shot down and thus MUST be employed over space where you have air superiority) there are situations in which it is better to use 30 or 40 unguided rounds over a single expensive guided munition.1) There is no good way to stop these assets from "being put into use". I should clarify, that by "these assets", I mean just stand-off weaponry in general, and as to answer "why there is no good way to stop it", it's notoriously difficult to shoot down incoming small projectiles, and every one that bypasses your defences hits, and hits hard.
The fact "guided munitions get used way more than unguided munitions in the wars against insurgents" doesn't imply "unguided munitions are useful against non-insurgents", so you need a better argument than that to negate my proposition of "unguided munitions are useful only against insurgents".Yes it does. The tools for dealing with that kind of conflict are obviously there because they are ideal for the situations they're employed in, no? Unguided munitions can be used to great effect against large formations of units in open ground where accuracy isn't an issue. I already mentioned this. The cost is also a very important factor to consider alongside the actual result, something that you seem to be ignoring.
That fact can, alternatively, very well mean that modern militaries just use more guided munitions than unguided munitions in general, against any opponent, simply because it's more effective to do so.
1) Ever heard of spy satellites? Can't really hide something as big as a shell storage facility from them - given the large traffic near it, that's required for it to actually function as distributor of unguided shells.
2) If we include stuff like "ballistic/cruise missile launchers" to what we call artillery here (which seems to me to not be incorrect, in the context of "modern militaries fight it out"), then there's literally no "back echelon" in a sense of a "place where enemy's fire cannot reach you". Combine that with satellite detection, and you can bet any large static asset (such as a storage facility for unguided shell - you really need a lot of them to be of even theoretical parity to guided ones!) is going to be as good as dead within the first few hours of conflict.
1) There is no good way to stop these assets from "being put into use". I should clarify, that by "these assets", I mean just stand-off weaponry in general, and as to answer "why there is no good way to stop it", it's notoriously difficult to shoot down incoming small projectiles, and every one that bypasses your defences hits, and hits hard.
Besides, to shoot down a guided projectile, you almost certainly need a guided projectile of your own, and a more capable one, as well, because it has to hit a much smaller and faster target.
2) There are almost no realistic situations where you can expect to fire off 30 or 40 times more of unguided rounds than guided munitions in modern conventional conflict between two modern militaries, since a fired projectile is instantly traced back to its source (thanks to modern counter-battery radars), and you have to relocate almost immediately afterwards or get destroyed.
I shall note that in this counter-battery task, guided munitions are also far more effective than unguided ones, since they can be made to automatically home in on repositioning artillery.
Fortified targets exist.For those, we developed the Massive Ordinance Penetrator.
So blow up a million dollar bunker with a fifteen million dollar bomb?If it's stopping millions of dollars worth of troops from advancing and you're sure the plane isn't going to get shot down, yes.
And when the enemy makes 16 such bunkers and you have 15 such bombs in the world?Destroy one bunker and bypass the rest. They are fixed positions. Cut the other bunkers off from their supplies or attack them from multiple sides if time is important. Force them to surrender.
Cut the other bunkers off from their supplies or attack them from multiple sides if time is important.
Yes it does. The tools for dealing with that kind of conflict are obviously there because they are ideal for the situations they're employed in, no? Unguided munitions can be used to great effect against large formations of units in open ground where accuracy isn't an issue. I already mentioned this. The cost is also a very important factor to consider alongside the actual result, something that you seem to be ignoring.Cost doesn't seem to be a limiting factor for modern armies. If it was, they wouldn't be firing PGMs to blow up ISIS excavators every 2-3 days.
The modern military can afford to use more guided than unguided munitions today because their enemies are few in number and concentrated in small areas surrounded by people and buildings you don't want to destroy.Modern militaries themselves are usually "few in number". An order-of-magnitude larger than what insurgents usually bring, sure, but a modern military losing 10% of its assets could lose most of its fighting capability, if you choose and hit the right targets. That is, they're more vulnerable to being reduced in combat capacity than insurgents, who can just replace their losses cheap and fast.
The simple fact is that spy satellites are too valuable to be diverted for tactical and operational intelligence gathering. They're busy with jobs bigger than locating one storage area. But now it sounds like you're talking about a home front factory rather than a forward supply dump just behind the front lines. Not to mention anti-satellite missiles are a thing. Satellites will be shot down in a war between developed nations.No one will actually shoot down any satellites, not until the "total war" stage, which will never happen. It's just too risky to do that, too much and you may block the space for everyone due to Kessler syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome).
Anti-missile missiles are a thing. As for artillery, there are lasers today that can shoot down mortar shells but nothing that has really been battle tested. But heck maybe ten years down the line you'll need to mass your fire to break through an enemy's point defenses. That's not really relevant though since we're talking facts.Anti-missile missiles are guided munitions by definition, so you're actually supporting my point of view here. As for "massing your fire", that's not going to become an issue - because unguided munitions are, by definition, moving on ballistic trajectory - and thus are infinitely easier to shoot down than a ground-hugging hyper-sonic cruise missile - which is a guided munition. So again, guided munitions rule, unguided munitions drool.
Missiles can be shot down, the planes that carry laser-guided bombs can be shot down, artillery can be defeated via a strong front line and good maneuvering. This is where infantry come into their own. They can be too numerous and too low-value to be worth shelling with guided munitions, which is where unguided weapons come in.Missiles are not cost-ineffective to shoot down, because the attacker has an advantage of being able to choose where they strike, and you're not going to be able to protect everything you need to protect if your country is bigger than Estonia. With planes, F-35 are Low Observable, which makes "shoot them down" a very difficult task, especially since they can also choose where they strike and thus go around your defences.
This field isn't shrouded in mystery. There are anti-missile systems all over the world that have proved effectiveness at shooting down ballistic missiles.Last time I checked, their maximum "effectiveness" was "intercept of 30% of missiles". Not quite enough.
They're more accurate, but only if you have eyes on the target, but not always more effective if the alternative is firing lots of cheaper ammo with the same payload. Saving money is a big part of a winning a war.And I say that you'll save much more money if you fire guided munitions than unguided ones, because you will be able to destroy enemy assets faster and as a result, prevent enemy from destroying your assets. Quality wins over quantity, all modern conflicts have shown that. With quality, you save more people and equipment of your own in every fire exchange, and it all adds up, big time.
Fortified targets exist.Blowing up the entrance in a right way will make them useless for any logistical purpose. Of course, that would be quite difficult to do with unguided munitions - but with guided ones, it's much easier. And of course, there could be other weak spots, as well.
You have plenty of bunker-buster that are smaller than a MOP.Yep. Had to assume the "bunkers" being talked about were being destroyed as efficiently as possible, since, I mean, ground-bursting nuclear weapons are also "bunker busters". The problem with these hypotheticals is that they don't take into account all of the many facets of modern war. There are a lot of moving parts to consider.
As for infantry, I can say that, if enemy's reduced to low-value infantry, he's effectively already defeated and it doesn't matter what weapon you choose to finish them off. Unguided munitions could be useful in this case, of course, but you could do the same with tank shells and IFV's autocannons, i.e. non-artillery assets, that could, in addition to doing the task of artillery, also able to advance into enemy's territory.
I guess so...As for infantry, I can say that, if enemy's reduced to low-value infantry, he's effectively already defeated and it doesn't matter what weapon you choose to finish them off. Unguided munitions could be useful in this case, of course, but you could do the same with tank shells and IFV's autocannons, i.e. non-artillery assets, that could, in addition to doing the task of artillery, also able to advance into enemy's territory.
Cool, so it seems to me like you and guninanrunin agree about more then you thought you agreed about.
Cost doesn't seem to be a limiting factor for modern armies. If it was, they wouldn't be firing PGMs to blow up ISIS excavators every 2-3 days.If you don't have money you can't buy weapons and pay soldiers. How is money not one of the primary limiting factors for an army?
Modern militaries themselves are usually "few in number". An order-of-magnitude larger than what insurgents usually bring, sure, but a modern military losing 10% of its assets could lose most of its fighting capability, if you choose and hit the right targets. That is, they're more vulnerable to being reduced in combat capacity than insurgents, who can just replace their losses cheap and fast.Maybe cheap relative to a modern military but for insurgents obviously equipment modern militaries take for granted, like rocket launchers and mortars, are quite valuable to them.
No one will actually shoot down any satellites, not until the "total war" stage, which will never happen. It's just too risky to do that, too much and you may block the space for everyone due to Kessler syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome).That's very optimistic of you, but we're talking about first-world militaries fighting one another with their standing armies. Please assume that, for the most part, they're not pulling any punches (short of nuclear war). Destroying your enemy's satellites would be a very important part of winning.
Anti-missile missiles are guided munitions by definition, so you're actually supporting my point of view here. As for "massing your fire", that's not going to become an issue - because unguided munitions are, by definition, moving on ballistic trajectory - and thus are infinitely easier to shoot down than a ground-hugging hyper-sonic cruise missile - which is a guided munition. So again, guided munitions rule, unguided munitions drool.I'm not saying guided munitions are better, I'm just explaining why unguided munitions still have a job. Guided munitions are still more predictable than fighters piloted by humans. Also I'm pretty sure most cruise missiles fly slower than fighters, but yeah I've read about those hypersonic cruise missiles. No doubt it would be easy enough to get an anti-missile missile flying at the same speed if you can already get a weapon with a 2000 pound payload flying that quick.
Missiles are not cost-ineffective to shoot down, because the attacker has an advantage of being able to choose where they strike, and you're not going to be able to protect everything you need to protect if your country is bigger than Estonia. With planes, F-35 are Low Observable, which makes "shoot them down" a very difficult task, especially since they can also choose where they strike and thus go around your defenses.SAMs are expensive and often fixed installations, so you're right that they can be easy to bypass once located, but that's just one layer of a proper air defense. Surface AA covers important areas that have been built up like FOBs and other installations; we can employ our own AWACS and fighters to fill in the gaps by locating and shooting down enemy cruise missiles and hostile fighters.
As for infantry, I can say that, if enemy's reduced to low-value infantry, he's effectively already defeated and it doesn't matter what weapon you choose to finish them off. Unguided munitions could be useful in this case, of course, but you could do the same with tank shells and IFV's autocannons, i.e. non-artillery assets, that could, in addition to doing the task of artillery, also able to advance into enemy's territory.Again, these weapons have different capabilities, and thus different roles. Howitzers and tanks provide different kinds of support; indirect versus direct.
(also, "strong front-line"? WW2 was more than half a century ago, modern warfare doesn't have "front-lines" in the usual sense of that word)
Last time I checked, their maximum "effectiveness" was "intercept of 30% of missiles". Not quite enough.That figure is familiar. You must be talking about the scuds in Iraq. These are the best sources I've found on that:
And I say that you'll save much more money if you fire guided munitions than unguided ones, because you will be able to destroy enemy assets faster and as a result, prevent enemy from destroying your assets. Quality wins over quantity, all modern conflicts have shown that. With quality, you save more people and equipment of your own in every fire exchange, and it all adds up, big time.I would argue that there needs to be a balance of quality and quantity. This is what I was arguing earlier with conscription. There is a place for highly trained special forces and there is a place for the career rifleman. That is why modern militaries make use of both.
Blowing up the entrance in a right way will make them useless for any logistical purpose. Of course, that would be quite difficult to do with unguided munitions - but with guided ones, it's much easier. And of course, there could be other weak spots, as well.A precision bomb built to detonate inside the structure is the best way to take out an enemy inside a built-up area or in prepared positions. What I'm saying is that it's not always possible to use those weapons in some situations.
you know there's some irony in Russian arguing against an American that guided weapons are better than unguided onesGuided weapons aren't better than unguided ones. That is not what I'm saying. The weapons have different jobs and should be used in different situations. Using one should not preclude the use of the other. That is what I'm arguing for. To me you're saying that unguided weapons are useless because precision weapons exist, but I'm saying both have pros and cons and are valuable in different contexts.
Because "don't have money" doesn't apply to a first-world military. Modern military budgets are already very low, and it's still more than enough to cover up all the costs. In any situation where the budget would be strained, if there was a serious conflict, they would just get a loan and continue spending as much as possible. So money isn't a bottleneck here. The real bottleneck is in how intensely you can apply said money to your enemy, and guided munitions win here, because they pack more money (and thus, more effectiveness) per a standard loadout (i.e. the maximum optimal amount of shells you can store near a launcher device). Same with network-related stuff - you effectively add the money of your network system to every action took with its help, and thus raise the density, as well.Cost doesn't seem to be a limiting factor for modern armies. If it was, they wouldn't be firing PGMs to blow up ISIS excavators every 2-3 days.If you don't have money you can't buy weapons and pay soldiers. How is money not one of the primary limiting factors for an army?
Idk, I guess?Modern militaries themselves are usually "few in number". An order-of-magnitude larger than what insurgents usually bring, sure, but a modern military losing 10% of its assets could lose most of its fighting capability, if you choose and hit the right targets. That is, they're more vulnerable to being reduced in combat capacity than insurgents, who can just replace their losses cheap and fast.Maybe cheap relative to a modern military but for insurgents obviously equipment modern militaries take for granted, like rocket launchers and mortars, are quite valuable to them.
Militaries serve the interests of the public, of the government, and no government is interested in potentially losing access to space for a millenia. Moreso, modern militaries will "pull" their punches, because we're not living in 20th century and modern people are no longer accepting mass murder of civilians in order to win. With satellites, the potential risks of being known as a "nation that fucked up space for everyone" would heavily outweigh any potential gains due to such actions. It would almost certainly cause an international embargo of a state that did it.No one will actually shoot down any satellites, not until the "total war" stage, which will never happen. It's just too risky to do that, too much and you may block the space for everyone due to Kessler syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome).That's very optimistic of you, but we're talking about first-world militaries fighting one another with their standing armies. Please assume that, for the most part, they're not pulling any punches (short of nuclear war). Destroying your enemy's satellites would be a very important part of winning.
Well, I did say that unguided munitions are still useful against insurgents, didn't I? And later, said that network-directed unguided weapons could also work, in certain situations. It's just that... the fact that "weapons have different jobs and should be used in different situations" does not contradict the fact that "outdated weapons have no place on modern battlefield".you know there's some irony in Russian arguing against an American that guided weapons are better than unguided onesGuided weapons aren't better than unguided ones. That is not what I'm saying. The weapons have different jobs and should be used in different situations. Using one should not preclude the use of the other. That is what I'm arguing for. To me you're saying that unguided weapons are useless because precision weapons exist, but I'm saying both have pros and cons and are valuable in different contexts.
Guided Artillery - Use it to destroy relatively small, valuable targets.
Pros
- More accurate than unguided weapons
Cons
- Can be spoofed (e-warfare)
- Require timely and accurate intelligence to use properly
- Expensive [1 (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/excalibur-goes-to-sea-raytheon-smart-artillery-shoots-back/)]
Unguided Artillery - Use it to destroy relatively large targets where discrimination isn't necessary.
Pros
- Cheap [1 (http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html)]
Cons
- Less accurate than guided weapons
- Require timely and accurate intelligence to use properly
((Just because I listed more cons, it doesn't mean I think they outweigh the others.))
All facts point out to the constantly decreasing percentage of unguided munitions being used in modern conflicts, and for past 30 years, there's been a correlation between "side that uses primarily unguided munitions in combat" and "side that loses horribly". Desert Storm, Invasion of Iraq, Insurgency in Iraq, Civil War in Syria - in every conflict, the side that has used more guided/network-directed munitions has either won, or was definitely winning until the opposite side started using even more guided/network-directed munitions.I'm saying your correlation is wrong, because in none of those fights you name was the military in question fighting a military that had technological parity with the other. The Russian military for example has e-warfare, anti-missile, and anti-fighter capability at least in the same neighborhood as the US army (again for example), which means guided weapons can actually be countered, which means that unguided weapons actually have a place in a first-world on first-world conflict.
Guided munitions are only issued in limited numbers. The vast majority of shells in the inventories of the world powers and fired on the battlefields they're involved in are still good old-fashioned high explosive. Besides, guided shells are primarily intended for use against vehicles.Unguided shells are mostly useless. Guided shells and, generally, guided munitions are so much more effective at their jobs that everyone who can use them, uses them. ATGM missiles in Syria are used against infantry on a regular basis, and that's among a third-rate military. A first-rate military would use (and uses - look at how modern NATO fights) significantly more guided munitions than unguided ones, because firing unguided munitions is literally a waste of time and manpower, when you have guided munitions available.
All these "inventories" of unguided shells are mostly wasting storage space, and the only reason why they're still there is because 1) utilizing shells is really costly and dangerous, and 2) sometimes, you can modernize those into guided ones, like with JDAMs.
All facts point out to the constantly decreasing percentage of unguided munitions being used in modern conflicts
- Cheap [1 (http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html)]I think you quoted a tabletop RPG manual there :P
I was hoping everyone would be too lazy to trim the address. If people can sell 105s for 400 bucks on the internet surely the prices can't be far off. I hope I can find a 2016 report on how much they actually cost though.- Cheap [1 (http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html)]I think you quoted a tabletop RPG manual there :P
Fixed Fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. [quote/]
I thought that was a lament about the existence of war and not a strategic assessment?Understandable, but it's important to remember that this was said by General George Patton; the only lament he had about war was that it came to an end. That said, it's also worth remembering that Patton's primary ethos to war was to go for the grapple whenever possible, and like Guderian and Rommel, he never met a logistics tail he couldn't outrun. It's understandable that he would loathe any sort of static defense on a matter of pure principle, rather than practicality.
Understandable, but it's important to remember that this was said by General George Patton; the only lament he had about war was that it came to an end.
and the over-commital of the reserves too early, based on stolen military plans that had since been superseded and bad assumptions in the French High Command.
I wonder if it was so bizarre, actually; the notion that the French could outlast the Germans critically required the German initial blow to be blunted somehow, and the French by preference much rathered this be in Belgium rather than on the Marne. The plan was thus predicated on ensuring that the war would be fought in Belgium rather than France; that was why the Maginot went up. Geographically and militarily, the Dyle Line and the Namur fortifications was, as far as I'm aware, the last major defensive position available, especially after the Liege forts fell, and the rapid pace of the German advance essentially called for an equally rapid mobilization of the BEF and French Seventh Army to beat them to that position. Political exigencies, too, became key; with the Dutch in the war this time around, the Dyle Plan allowed all three armies to link up rather than the Dutch being defeated in detail, the 1936 Belgian neutrality measures had blocked a more measured mobilization and forward deployment of French forces in advance (necessitating a rapid response), and the fortification of the Franco-Belgian border fell foul of the budget cuts in the Great Depression as well as the practical declaration that this would have been perceived as an "abandonment" of the Belgians, which...well, it was suspected, and eventually proven in 1936 and again in 1940 that King Leopold III lacked the backbone his father had shown. It was a gamble, but it was seen as a relatively sound one, and it's primarily in retrospect that it proved to be the direst of errors in the Battle of France; if the French had abandoned the Belgians to their fate and the Seventh had been available for action in the early days of the Ardennes Offensive, it may have been able to rip the world's largest traffic jam to shreds before the Germans ever got their heads out of their collective bottoms.and the over-commital of the reserves too early, based on stolen military plans that had since been superseded and bad assumptions in the French High Command.
Even assuming the stolen plans were accurate, it was a bizarre over commitment. The plan was predicated on the notion that the French could outlast the Germans. Committing all your reserves to a decisive battle right at the very start undermines 20 years of French planning.
QuoteRather, not every soldier has the same chance to end up under a barrage. Artillery is pretty darn effective, when it shoots the right location. In Ukraine it continues to create 80%+ of casualties, as since 1914 at least or so. You just don't want to end be at the receiving end.There are huge difference in causalities when same artillery strikes properly prepared positions made by professional soldiers and when it strikes a crowd of armed civilians in open field.
That is definitely not optimized to hitting small groups let alone individual guerrillas. :)Indeed. Against those targets precision weapons are more efficient.
What will you do when the Lappland Liberation Front start a guerrilla war led by small units on reindeerback then?Surrender?
What will you do when the Lappland Liberation Front start a guerilla war led by small units on reindeerback then?
What will you do when the Lappland Liberation Front start a guerrilla war led by small units on reindeerback then?Surrender?
This is true. However, an attacking force(the enemy) does not usually spend hours preparing defensive positions.Modern war is a war of mobility. Especially on offensive. You move and hide to avoid artillery (unless you are speaking about that weird Ukrainian-Russian war that looks like unholy mix of WW1,WW2,cold war era conflicts and spec ops playing counter-strike in the real life)
This is true. However, an attacking force(the enemy) does not usually spend hours preparing defensive positions.Modern war is a war of mobility. Especially on offensive. You move and hide to avoid artillery (unless you are speaking about that weird Ukrainian-Russian war that looks like unholy mix of WW1,WW2,cold war era conflicts and spec ops playing counter-strike in the real life)
No it doesn't. You don't just stop maneuvering when you locate the enemy. You try to outmaneuver him. Flank him or surround him or cut him off.That movement also stops when it meets defenders or another obstacle.This is true. However, an attacking force(the enemy) does not usually spend hours preparing defensive positions.Modern war is a war of mobility. Especially on offensive. You move and hide to avoid artillery (unless you are speaking about that weird Ukrainian-Russian war that looks like unholy mix of WW1,WW2,cold war era conflicts and spec ops playing counter-strike in the real life)
Alternatively, you do a full frontal assault through enemy's positions by rapidly concentrating forces in several locations of enemy's front line (or whatever its analogy in the modern warfare) and then full throttle your mechanized formations to overrun their supply lines and wreck chaos and destruction at places where your opponent doesn't expect them to be, while fixing the "front-line" survivors with motorized groups and then encircling and artillerating them to death. That's how the Soviet manuals tell to do it.No it doesn't. You don't just stop maneuvering when you locate the enemy. You try to outmaneuver him. Flank him or surround him or cut him off.That movement also stops when it meets defenders or another obstacle.This is true. However, an attacking force(the enemy) does not usually spend hours preparing defensive positions.Modern war is a war of mobility. Especially on offensive. You move and hide to avoid artillery (unless you are speaking about that weird Ukrainian-Russian war that looks like unholy mix of WW1,WW2,cold war era conflicts and spec ops playing counter-strike in the real life)
No it doesn't. You don't just stop maneuvering when you locate the enemy. You try to outmaneuver him. Flank him or surround him or cut him off.Notably in the conflicts within Iraq and Syria, due to all the mobile major firepower having been blown up, when two groups met at a town they'd just stop and wait until someone brought in a truck bomb/air strike on the fortified town. Helps to have artillery round about then, unless that artillery just becomes an airstrike magnet
No it doesn't. You don't just stop maneuvering when you locate the enemy. You try to outmaneuver him. Flank him or surround him or cut him off.Notably in the conflicts within Iraq and Syria, due to all the mobile major firepower having been blown up, when two groups met at a town they'd just stop and wait until someone brought in a truck bomb/air strike on the fortified town. Helps to have artillery round about then, unless that artillery just becomes an airstrike magnet
I love how everyone is going "no, modern warfare doesn't look like this, it look like this" while referencing totally theoretical wars between major militaries as if they were real.The last time two superpowers fought was in World War 2, so yeah. It remains a hypothetical discussion. Isn't that what this thread is for?
I love how everyone is going "no, modern warfare doesn't look like this, it look like this" while referencing totally theoretical wars between major militaries as if they were real.I referenced the totally factual wars between major and minor militaries. Totally different!
No it doesn't. You don't just stop maneuvering when you locate the enemy. You try to outmaneuver him. Flank him or surround him or cut him off.That movement also stops when it meets defenders or another obstacle.This is true. However, an attacking force(the enemy) does not usually spend hours preparing defensive positions.Modern war is a war of mobility. Especially on offensive. You move and hide to avoid artillery (unless you are speaking about that weird Ukrainian-Russian war that looks like unholy mix of WW1,WW2,cold war era conflicts and spec ops playing counter-strike in the real life)
Shoots Kot with his arquebus.Arquebus?
The massed pike was a deterrent to a cavalry charge - not a weapon to actively negate it. Sure, a horseman could have a lance long enough to stab at a pikeman before retaliatory stab, but would still be on a galloping horse hurtling into a wall of many more stabby things, rendering the charge futile.
Indeed. Actual cavalry would never ride into a block of infantry that was holding their ground no matter how they were armed, unless you're playing Total War, for a few reasons.That is all very true, at least for Western armies of the time. It was and apparently is widely agreed that cavalry couldn't fall on a pike formation, but you all seem to be forgetting that we're talking Winged Hussars here. They literally did what you say they didin't, and they did it with very good results. During Battle of Kircholm, Poles had about 2,600 Winged Hussars against nearly 11,000 Swedish soldiers. Polish Hussars first utterly crushed Swedish cavalry that they tried to stop charges with and then perfomed a charge on wall of Swedish pike and shot.
1. Only a very disciplined horse could be convinced to ride into a large mass of people.
2. The sheer amount of casualties you would incur would not be worth it. Ramming your horse into a few ranks of people holding weapons is a good way to separate a you from your horse and/or get both of you killed.
You might break the enemy's formation by doing something so utterly insane, it would surely cause much chaos, but you've also given up all of the advantages that come with being cavalry by bogging yourself down in an enemy formation.
Real cavalry who are engaging in a charge would bear down on enemy infantry, hoping that they would get scared and run away, and only if they broke ranks and fled would the cavalry continue charging and start cutting men down. If the enemy held their ground, which was a common enough outcome with professional infantry, the cavalry would instead wheel away and either try again, or wait for other forces to generate a better opportunity.
All praise the gorillion folded winged hussars. ::)If they only had katanas, Poland would have conquered whole world ::)
All praise the gorillion folded winged hussars. ::)
Very very few hussars died to cannon fire. Not due to armor, but because actually firing on them wasn't easy. They weren't deployed onto the battlefield until the moment a charge was needed, and, when they were preparing to charge, they were spread out enough that cannon fire could only kill a few of them. Sure, hussars were killed by cannons, but never enough to turn back a charge.This I can agree with. It's the absurd notion that Hussars could not be killed even by cannons that I won't accept.
My point was that armour fares much better against early blackpowder guns than it's commonly believed, and that the armour was in some cases so good that it actually could save your life (not your ability to fight in that battle) from a fucking cannon.
My point was that armour fares much better against early blackpowder guns than it's commonly believed, and that the armour was in some cases so good that it actually could save your life (not your ability to fight in that battle) from a fucking cannon.I have no illusions that it's possible to withstand being shot by a blackpowder weapon if you're wearing armor. In the 16th and 17th century it was common to still wear plate armor. There's a reason that people wore plate armor in the pike and shot era, but there's also a reason that the Winged Hussars unit as well as their cavalry tactics became obsolete on the battlefield in the 18th century.
Star wars has a fleet that far outstrips those available to star trek in sheer size alone. The imperial military could pretty much just overrun the federation. An economy the size of thousands, if not millions, of worlds is going to be able to provide a far larger military than what the federation could potentially muster.Good point. Though do Star Wars ships have shields? I think I've seen shields on the capital ships but I don't think I've seen anything like the shielded shuttlecraft Trek has.
@Maniac: The federation is TINY compared to the empire/republic. Coruscant alone has a population of a single trillion, and with thousands of planets under it's aegis which likely have populations in the billions
Star wars shields don't operate on frequencies however, actually being a 'barrier' which effectively diffuses incoming energy weapons, there's not much chance of actually slipping through it with a phasor. And the average hull integrity of a star destroyer I would say is actually pretty sturdy. Not unbeatable, but it will take more than a single torpedo. Those things do dwarf most ships in the federation fleet.
Naboo being a minnow is inline with the politics of the world. You think a pacifist nation is going to have a large military? And the rebels operated on a cell structure; while the bases on yavin and hoth were their HQs, the military hardware there likely represented only a fraction of what the rebellion had, in case the empire found a base and rolled over them as it did in the movies as it can ill afford to concentrate it's forces for anything but particularly decisive engagements.
The threat of those losses would've likely been smiliar to what happened to the empire; it was never the loss of material that was so damaging was it was all the command personnel that would've gone with all that equipment. The first death star took many of the empire's high-level government officials when that went up, and the emperor kicking the bucket as the second death star went up did far more damage than the material losses on those death stars.
And taking naboo as the average world is disingenuous; naboo was far from the average in terms of development and had an economy primarily based on gathering a single resource. Add to the fact they were pacifists (Meaning they saw little need for military industrial development.)
This is almost as bad as the weebs going on about reading their mangoes and watching their animated mongolian comics. I feel gladder every day that I haven't seen either of these natural-philosophy-fantasy serial publications by Tolkien that show up so often in popular culture.Why you gotta hate on Tibetan goat herding cartoons
It's not the polynesian video drawings themselves that I find very offensive, it's just the excessive enthusiasm for azerbaijani television doodles that can be a bit off-putting.
I do think star wars' ftl is much, much faster than that of star trek. An extremely important advantage, I'd say. And I got it from reading this website: http://www.stardestroyer.netTbh though that wouldn't be an issue given Star Wars' great vulnerability to asymmetrical warfare, their better logistics could be countered with gorilla warfare
Which is an entire website dedicated to the question of star wars vs star trek. Kinda biased for the former, but interesting nonetheless.
gorilla warfareEwoks are not gorillas!
Do they? I don't remember stuff like droids in Star TRek.(http://i.stack.imgur.com/ObBgt.jpg)
Assuming that the federation doesn't just hastily resurrect the Pegasus program and fly an attack craft directly through the death star into the power core of the station.See, this is what I've been talking about when I've mentioned "plot fiat". Star Trek cannot win the war without relying on ridiculous outliers born from the tech-of-the-week stuff that is incredibly powerful, but doesn't exist outside of that one episode it's in.
Or that they dont just send half a dozen roundabouts to make an attack run at warp four on those vulnerable exhaust ports.
Star Trek clearly has the tech advantage.
First Contact was won by Federation only through plot fiat, and without it, Federation would've been done in by a single Borg Cube. Death Star is like a Borg Cube, but moon-sized and equipped with a long-range planet-busting super-laser.First Contact occurs after TIME TRAVEL YOU DOLT.
But still, their sheer size and their planet-destroying super-weapons like Death Star, combined with Federation being very small and centralized around Earth, ensures the Empire's ultimate victory through annihilation of the entire Solar System.The biggest (only) advantage I'll concede to the Empire is its size. You're correct that Federation is small comparatively, though I think you're under the impression its more centralized then it is (though it IS pretty centralized)
But that actually doesn't matter at all, because since the new Star Wars movieDOESN'T COUNT CANON BALLS FIRED LASER SWORDS DON'T HAVE LASER HILTS
But that actually doesn't matter at all, because since the new Star Wars movie, they (the First Order, actually, but that's even worse for this scenario, since they're just a fraction of Empire, and thus have only a fraction of full Empire's capabilities) have a super-weapon (Starkiller) capable of destroying the entire Solar System from half a galaxy away. How many years it would take for Voyager to cross that insane distance, again? IIRC it was at least several dozen years. And Star Wars can just shoot down the entire Federation from that distance, like ducks on a range.
The republic was stable, and so was the empire for the majority of it's existence.
I'm pretty sure the Empire would win simply by the fact the Star Wars Universe has had mass organized space warfare over the scale of a galaxy for what? several thousand years at least? and Star Trek has had it for a couple centuries on the scale of singular battles? I think the Federation might be a little screwed.
Also seeing the fact it look like that when the Star Killer fired you could literally see it on a totally different planet, in a completely different star system, with your eyes in broad daylight. Even if it couldn't fire out of whatever cluster of stars it's in, it could travel through hyperspace by itself. All it would need to do what get to a star in the region of Earth and fire.
Star Trek ships barely have any velocity at all. The warp drive works by distorting space, not adding kinetic velocity.
Star Wars? I dunno. Looks like some sort of wormhole thingie.
The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
If anything, the fact that near c kinetic kill vehicles to planets isn't the preeminent form of warfare in either universe says that it's either taboo or not effective.
The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
Inertialess drives/non-newtonian accelerators/whatever the heck are even more terrifying, unless given arbitrary limitations by the author specifically to avoid their use as weapons.The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
If anything, the fact that near c kinetic kill vehicles to planets isn't the preeminent form of warfare in either universe says that it's either taboo or not effective.
My default assumption is that it's taboo, a taboo that will be broken in sufficient emergency, like nukes in our world.
If anything, the fact that near c kinetic kill vehicles to planets isn't the preeminent form of warfare in either universe says that it's either taboo or not effective.
The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
Inertialess drives/non-newtonian accelerators/whatever the heck are even more terrifying, unless given arbitrary limitations by the author specifically to avoid their use as weapons.The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
If anything, the fact that near c kinetic kill vehicles to planets isn't the preeminent form of warfare in either universe says that it's either taboo or not effective.
My default assumption is that it's taboo, a taboo that will be broken in sufficient emergency, like nukes in our world.
We see an awful lot of desperate straights in both universes, though. Why build a death star if you can get a beater starship to do it?
@maniniac: In fairness, above .84c you get more energy per impactor mass than antimatter, but I see your point.
@maniniac: In fairness, above .84c you get more energy per impactor mass than antimatter, but I see your point.The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
Inertialess drives/non-newtonian accelerators/whatever the heck are even more terrifying, unless given arbitrary limitations by the author specifically to avoid their use as weapons.The sublight maneuvers in both lores are distinctly non Newtonian. You are talking about them like they are rockets capable of indefinite acceleration. They aren't.
If anything, the fact that near c kinetic kill vehicles to planets isn't the preeminent form of warfare in either universe says that it's either taboo or not effective.
My default assumption is that it's taboo, a taboo that will be broken in sufficient emergency, like nukes in our world.
We see an awful lot of desperate straights in both universes, though. Why build a death star if you can get a beater starship to do it?
Why spend billions bombarding enemy positions with fighter-bombers and tomahawk missiles of only uncertain effectiveness when you could drop a nuke and end it?
Not necessarily.mini-rant: Depends on how all-out. Hermann Kahn, the Cold-War Theorist who was one of three inspirations for the character of Dr. Strangelove, with such lovely book titles as On Thermonuclear War, Thinking about the Unthinkable, and On Escalation, was a staple of my tween years. He theorized the existence of a "Escalation ladder". Whereas most thinking about Nuclear Weapons traditionally imagines that Nuclear weapons are a very simple "Yes/No" value, he argued that Nuclear Weapons had their place on the "ladder" of confrontation, where the bottom rung is "Ostensible Crisis" and the Top rung is "Spasm or Insensate Nuclear Warfare", and everything else inbetween covers everything else, from shows of force to legal and diplomatic sanctions, from limited conventional warfare, to Nuclear Ultimatums, and from Local "Exemplary" use of nuclear weapons to limited military usage, all the way up to targeting of civilians to various extents. No such crisis needed to go through every single step on the ladder, he thought, so a situation COULD just develop straight to "general nuking of everything", but it need not. There are stages between using war and nuclear war, and there are stages between local nuclear war or military nuclear war and the popular image of sending 50-megaton bombs to all the major cities. I'd say that this ladder would only become more diverse and complicated when different types of WMDs are used with wildly different capabilities, so the space version of the Escalation ladder must be pretty complex.
Why spend billions bombarding enemy positions with fighter-bombers and tomahawk missiles of only uncertain effectiveness when you could drop a nuke and end it?
I'm pretty sure the Empire would win simply by the fact the Star Wars Universe has had mass organized space warfare over the scale of a galaxy for what? several thousand years at least? and Star Trek has had it for a couple centuries on the scale of singular battles? I think the Federation might be a little screwed.The Star Wars Universe has had ONE mass organized space war. The same one over and over. Jedi vs. Sith. Jedi vs. Sith. Rinse, repeat.
I would guess that flywheels don't like holding together under the centripetal/centrifugal force of rotational velocities near c, whereas a straight velocity doesn't inherently try to tear you apart.
Because you get a level of control with fighter bomber you don't get with nukes. The Death Star sole purpose is to blow up planets. If a KKV could do it at a fraction of the cost they'd use that. In a world with KKV, the Death Star would be the equivalent of designing an gigantic airship that can litterally drop a million tons of TNT on your target so you get the effect of a nuke without a nuke.
Well, you can build KKVs that are just ammunition, torpedos in effect, but just taking scrapyard spacecraft and throwing them at the foe under automated control is very kamikaze-esque.
It very much looks to me as if various fighters and craft in at least Star Wars have engines that mess with their realspace velocity and don't need much fuel. That gives you near-c capabilities. If they don't have that, then my point is fairly meaningless, but it looks as if they do.
swords and horses era.Swords were usually back-up weapons, like pistols in modern army, due to them being rather bad for breaking through armor. Real knights used halberds and pole-axes.
So all they needed to do was make the yeoman act less about longbows and more about zweihanders?
A funny mental picture at the very least.
Good armor-piecring crossbows were kind of not cheap, so it's unlikely you would find them in peasant hands.
To throw some fantasy in the sci-fi (although it's probably been discussed already), is there any (tech-equivalent) answer to pike and shot? It's such a crappy end to the swords and horses era.Winged Hussars.
Spoiler: ITT: Fuck pikemen. (click to show/hide)
Okay, for another Sci Fi faction, how about the Daleks from Doctor Who? How would they do against any of the forces presented in Star Wars and Star Trek?Daleks win.
Daleks vs BorgDaleks win. That's the end of it.
Daleks vs Replicators
Could be interesting.
Don't forget carabiners and mongoliansTo throw some fantasy in the sci-fi (although it's probably been discussed already), is there any (tech-equivalent) answer to pike and shot? It's such a crappy end to the swords and horses era.Winged Hussars.
:*Spoiler: ITT: Fuck pikemen. (click to show/hide)
So all they needed to do was make the yeoman act less about longbows and more about zweihanders?The big misconception was that the doppelsoldners had an advantage because they could use their swords to chop the ends off pikes. This...may or may not be possible? No, their main advantage came from their weapons being shorter than pikes, but longer than what sidearms the enemy might have. So during a large push of pike they would exploit gaps, because once you had gotten past the tips of the pikes you were in little danger and you could close with the enemy and start controlling a large area with your huge sword, worsening the gap in their formation.
A funny mental picture at the very least.
Would be interested to see if a Swiss pike square would beat a post-Marian cohort or Macedonian phalanx.There was actually a post about just that on Sufficient Velocity, except it was a Spanish tercio. IIRC the determination was that 15th century gunfire would send them running.
Similarly to how Trek is tiers higher on the tech pole then Star Wars, the Daleks are at least as many tiers higher then Trek. Yes, even the Borg.
Borg "reverse engineering" didn't help them against Species 8472. And that level of technology was way below the Daleks.Similarly to how Trek is tiers higher on the tech pole then Star Wars, the Daleks are at least as many tiers higher then Trek. Yes, even the Borg.
The entire point to the borg and the replicators is how they are good at reverse engineering technology. If ever a single Dalek gets broken and lost, the Borg and replicators will reverse engineer all that.
^Borg "reverse engineering" didn't help them against Species 8472. And that level of technology was way below the Daleks.Similarly to how Trek is tiers higher on the tech pole then Star Wars, the Daleks are at least as many tiers higher then Trek. Yes, even the Borg.
The entire point to the borg and the replicators is how they are good at reverse engineering technology. If ever a single Dalek gets broken and lost, the Borg and replicators will reverse engineer all that.
So during a large push of pike they would exploit gaps, because once you had gotten past the tips of the pikes you were in little danger and you could close with the enemy and start controlling a large area with your huge sword, worsening the gap in their formation.I'm even skeptical on that mark, as most pike formations were able to put multiple ranks of pikes ahead of the formation. There's a reason why a formation with 18000 pikes had 2000 doppelhanders, especially if the pikemen were the powerful charging force like the early Swiss, rather than the slow tercios present later.
I think the greatswords were simply too cool/fashionable for people to accept that they weren't a winning weapon.QuoteThe determination was that 15th century gunfire would send them running.A really interesting read- although yeah I'd prefer the pike square comparison rather than the tercio simply for the lack of firearms present.
Mayhaps Mass Effect reapers would be better as an adaption race.
So, the ranking so far seems to be Time Lords > Dalek > Star Trek > Star Wars > Imperium of Man > Battlestar Galactica ?Add Xeelee between Dalek and Star Trek, too. They're kind of bonkers strong, the only reason why they're below is that they're still technically bound by physical laws, and Daleks/Time Lords are not, due to their ability to rewrite laws of reality with Eye of Harmony at their strongest showings.
So, the ranking so far seems to be Imperium of Man > Time Lords > Dalek > Star Trek > Star Wars > Battlestar Galactica ?Ordo Chronos dissaproves.
What the heck are Xeelee?The Xeelee are an alien race who are the undisputed masters of baryonic matter in the universe. They have technology beyond the scope of any other such species, including runner up humanity, who for all their power only manage to repeatedly fuck up all the carefully laid megaprojects the Xeelee are invested in and never achieve any real victories.
When I saw it was you posting, my first though was "No Kot, Winged Hussars don't defeat the Daleks".Well, it was shown that Dalek Gunstick beam could reflect back and destroy the Dalek if it struck a reflective surface.
Honorverse > Star Trekthem's the fighting words m8
From what setting are they?Xeelee Sequence. (It's that sort of thing.)
Star Wars has casual interstellar travel and many, many thousands of years of technological stagnation at a level that is far beyond Trek.
Bigger is better
The weapons gap is minuscule.
Star Trek has replicators, no Star Wars equivalent.Still easily out-masses Trek, negating advantage.
Star Trek has sun destroying technology, no Star Wars equivalent.Sun Crusher
Star Trek has cloaking devices, no Star Wars equivalent.Cloaking is common in Star Wars.
Star Trek has computers capable of running complex physical simulations, no Star Wars equivalent.SW AI is a better advantage.
Again, that site linked earlier gives a very strong case as to why star wars would 'beat' star trek, with quite some numbers and sources and such to back it up. Yes, it is rather pro-SW/anti-ST, but even so they make a compelling argument.
Here's an abbreviated version of their comparison: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
Literally the symbol of Star Wars is a superweapon.
It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time.
It draws from expanded universe of no consistency and it ignores that Star Wars uses the crude application of power while Star Trek is more refined. A squadron of charging knights on horseback had more kinetic energy then a shot from a MBT. Maybe we should conclude the knights are more advanced?What do you mean with 'expanded universe of no consistency' exactly? They cite their sources, which are often official books that are cannon for both universes. Also, they don't make claims about advancedness of things, they just compare their capabilities and derive conclusions from that.
The numbers for Star Wars are so damn high not because their ships are powerful, but because the people who gave those numbers have NO GODDAMN SENSE OF SCALE.Oh yeah, it's trivially easy to make it so one side beats another by making up different numbers for an imaginary universe. One could easily write a sci-fi short story where the protagonist race/entity wipes the floor with most other franchises. Even so, the numbers and events the creators gave us are what we have to work with.
Its clear they just picked the highest number they could pull out of their ass at any given moment.
Also the bias is strong as hell. It claims that the best example of planetary destruction in Star Trek is the die is cast. How about By Inferno's Light part 2 where there is a plan to blow up an entire solar system. ::) So I wouldn't call that much of a credible judge.
This crude comparisons of numbers reminds me a lot of the people who say that the King Tiger was more advanced then modern MBTs because the armor was thicker and the gun was bigger. That's not an indication of technology level! It doesn't matter much that the powerplant on the Star Destroyer shield is bigger then the Enterprise if the enterprise can modulate it's phasers and shoot right through!
In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.
What do you mean with 'expanded universe of no consistency' exactly?
The comparison they were making there (iirc, though it'd be really helpful if you could include links to the pages you refer to so I don't have to search up and down the site) was about the capacity for directly bombarding planets, without using 'external sources'.
In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.Are you talking about the first link I posted with 'that first one'?
We mean that Star Wars cannnon is whatever one of literally thousands of different people pulled out of their ass on a random day. The numbers vary immensely. Star Trek isn't perfect but it's more consistent.
If you accept the highball numbers, vast parts of the cannon stop making sense.
But no one in Trek would do that. It's against their sense of self preservation. It's like talking about how bad modern armies are at cavalry charges. Then someone brings up tanks and you say "stop changing the subject!"Again, could you please refer to the exact page you are talking about here? That'd make it easier for me to follow. Still, even if nobody in Trek would do it, that doesn't change things about their capacity for it. It'd also kinda hamper them in a case of total war, if they are unwilling to pursue that option.
It's also lowballing what is shown to be possible in Star Trek. When Sisko is chasing Michael Eddington he poisons several planets, rendering them inhabitable for colonization. He does this to several planets in a single day without any special preperation. (Personally I think he would have been court martialed but I guess it's okay if no one is living there.) So that shows what is possible in Star Trek if they are actually trying to burn the ground.I've seen a little ST in my time, but not nearly all of it. Could you perhaps give me episode titles so I can look them up and see what happened (or rather, check the episode synopsis)? Because I have no idea what the circumstances or scope of these events are right now to be honest. I mean, from looking it up quickly I suspect you are referring to this: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/For_the_Uniform_(episode)
The obvious conclusion is that in Star Trek inhabited planets have defenses.Do they ever directly refer to these defenses, what they are, what their capabilities are? Or is this only derived from inference? Because I could think of other explanations of why they would refrain from just nuking the shit out of a planet/population.
...That's not how you do comparisons. (no offense intended, it's just that 'would one stop working?' makes it pointless to compare in the first place) So, first, Star Wars is Space Fantasy too, with The Force. Second, comparisons like these (afaik) always function with the idea that each universe's technology works fine for them, and where their unique stuff/macguffins interact, they're supposed to translate into the equivalent as closely as possible for effects. Warp Rifts would probably rip Star Wars ships apart as well as they would 40k ships, and Jedi starfighters will be just as skilled in a dogfight against Imperial pilots who don't have the force as they would against any other opponent. 40k has magic interacting with technology a lot more, I'll grant, but from their perspective it's no more magic than hyperspace is for Star Wars. Few people understand the inner workings, and the general education level for 40k and complexity level for technology is a much starker contrasts.It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time.
Seems like a hard comparison. Star Wars is Space Opera while 40k is Space Fantasy. 40k it's just magic. Seems dodgy to say how magic would interact with technology. In fact that's their exact problem. What if all that 40k stuff just stops working? What if all the Star Wars stuff does?
Also, mainiac, this is a thread about fictional universes fighting each other. No need to become hostile
That last doesn't seem that obvious, nor does it seem entirely relevant, though. Do you mean doing a variety of things with that energy, or accomplishing them more efficiently?
Kot, stop acting so jealous. Just because you feel inadequate doesn't mean you need to act so jealous.If anyone here is jealous, it's you, because you're not Polish thus you can't have Winged Hussars. :*
If anyone here is jealous, it's you, because you're not Polish thus you can't have Winged Hussars. :*
mainiac you just hit poe's line. Ceasetime.
Ok, started reading that link with federation tech and god its retarded. They actually said that the costs of transmuting energy into different elements wouldn't differ. WE KNOW THIS FROM REAL LIFE PHYSICS HOLY SHIT. Someone never learned about atomic mass. Presumably deuterium and other "rare" elements have a larger number of protons in their atoms, meaning it would take vastly more say hydrogen or whatever to replicate them.In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.Are you talking about the first link I posted with 'that first one'?
Do you mean they don't adres the presence of unique ST techs adequately? They do have a page on both 'special' ST and SW techs: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Special/Special1.html and http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Special/Special2.html.
If you meant something else, could you elaborate?
For the record, saying that faction A of universe B could overpower its counterpart from universe C doesn't imply anything about any artistic or entertainment merit of either, and as said it's trivially easy to create a fictional universe that dwarfs a given other universe. So even if one's favored franchise loses, that doesn't really, you know, mean anything substantial (I'd rather have a interesting universe of lower power scales than the opposite). Just wanted to throw that out there.
actually said that the costs of transmuting energy into different elements wouldn't differ. WE KNOW THIS FROM REAL LIFE PHYSICS HOLY SHIT. Someone never learned about atomic mass. Presumably deuterium and other "rare" elements have a larger number of protons in their atoms, meaning it would take vastly more say hydrogen or whatever to replicate them
Like mainiac said, I'm not defensive, I'm frustrated. Though I feel he IS getting a bit salty now.
You saying things like that is why I said not to be hostile. I never said defensive, mind. You're just getting worked up in general and it's seeping into all your posts. You're being very aggressive about really little things.mainiac you just hit poe's line. Ceasetime.
Tack, please stop this absolutely unreasonable conversation! You should know better!
(Seriously though, you were fine when they were doing it and now you want to ride in like a white knight and referee?)
It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time. Star Trek ships are fast and shielded, but they can't really deal with Nova Cannons or swarms upon swarms of strikecraft.Star Trek ships can fight while in their FTL and perform drive-by shooting (because their go-to weapon, photon torpedoes, are also FTL capable), 40k has zero answers to that outside of Necron stuff.
Also you forgot to put the Culture at the top of the list. Or near it, at least.Culture is below Xeelee. Very very much below Xeelee. So not quite the top.
If we're talking full-scale wars rather than ship v. ship comparisons (of which I will argue that Imperium>Star Wars>Star Trek, on engagement range alone, before getting to energy levels and specific capabilities of engagement)Engagement ranges are irrelevant for Star Trek, they have FTL weapon systems which they can fire while also being in FTL mode, same for their sensors. There's a reason why I resorted to super-weapons when arguing for Star Wars - because Star Trek ships absolutely demolish anything Star Wars in normal combat, if they take it seriously.
@mainiac
Getting salty over people telling you that you are salty is basically only a confirmation though. The only winning move is not to play.
Culture is below Xeelee. Very very much below Xeelee. So not quite the top.Ehhh.
Deuterium specifically is an isotope of hydrogen, and exactly one neutron heavier. It's also not especially rare, available in low concentration wherever hydrogen or water are. If the replicators just convert stuff into energy and back again, the only thing that matters is the mass of an object, so a two-ounce gold watch could easily become a two-ounce box of nanitic medical supplies or something.Well then Deuterium is a very weird example then and I have no idea why its considered rare.
think it's something in the way your posts are written, and something I've observed across a bunch of topics.
If anyone here is jealous, it's you, because you're not Polish thus you can't have Winged Hussars. :*That was funny.
God dude. CHILL OUT. It's just a conversation. Stop acting so angry.That was where you came against poe's law. Kot, I knew was shitposting. I've given him crap about it in other threads. No, I'm not going to link them to soothe your battered ego.
No, I'm not going to link them to soothe your battered ego.This kinda thing is probably why he was getting so salty Tack. There's some definite back and forth going on here. Just pointing this out so mainiac doesn't have to later.
Regarding C) The Tau are Xeno, and thousands of years of xenophobia aren't set aside easily. But do not that I said Human and Humane. Most of the settings we've discussed are human-dominated.You' re mixing up ground based and space based macro cannons. Which is okay, they're easy to confuse because they have the same bloody name. But BFG and a wealth of Black Library novels confirm the range.
As for macro cannons, I've seen a range of 40 km on the lexicanum. That's not going to help you much.
Deuterium specifically is an isotope of hydrogen, and exactly one neutron heavier. It's also not especially rare, available in low concentration wherever hydrogen or water are. If the replicators just convert stuff into energy and back again, the only thing that matters is the mass of an object, so a two-ounce gold watch could easily become a two-ounce box of nanitic medical supplies or something.Well then Deuterium is a very weird example then and I have no idea why its considered rare.
As for the "the only thing that matters is the mass of an object" no. What matters is the ATOMIC mass of an object. Basically how many protons are in its atom.
So you could convert lead (82 protons) to gold (79 protons) at a somewhat decent exchange rate, but converting oxygen (8 protons) into gold would quickly deplete the atmosphere.
This also explains why that watch would be energy rich, since it was gold and gold is one of the decently high massed elements.
Meanwhile most foodstuffs are made of carbon which has only 6 protons and is thus easy to make lots of.
So basically people mine things because metals and such tend to have higher atomic mass and thus make buttloads of food.
But it's less likely that I, RPGeek and Sheb all have a hidden bias towards all of the people you were arguing with.
Also, given that ramming is a viable tactic in BFG, thats a sign the imperium lack range.
A) Its tech level is, generally speaking, crappy. They have huge-ass battleship, that use chemical guns. Loaded by crew. Sure, they go to space, but a lot of their weapons tech suddenly seems late 19th century. And they have a lot of ships, sure, but they sucks so much they're going to get mowed down like zulus facing a Maxim.They also have Lances which are supersized Lasers, Plasma Macrocannons (kinda like Star Wars blasters but better), and their torpedoes can cause massive warp rifts capable of sucking half of battleship in. There are also Nova Cannons which accelerates a huge projectile at fraction of speed of light (which is apparently fast enough to travel "tens of thousands of kilometers" in a "fraction of second"... fucking fractions, but I am in fact pretty sure that Imperium doesn't lack range) which then explodes at predetermined distance... and it's apparently capable of causing a "blast zone the size of a small planet", which I am sceptical of, but it's proven that it's completly capable of completly destroying a cruiser which is around 5-6 kilometers in Warhammer 40k terms.
B) It cannot use its human wave tactic in space easily. The Imperium doesn't have the STCs for all ships, and doesn't have the high tech manufacturing capability to produce lots of them. Especially if they need to produce more ships than the enemy produce missiles (see 1).Except they can. Places like Port Maw and Mars shit out starships at daily rate and the only reason they never have enough of them is because they keep utilizing starship wave tactics. Agreed, they lost a bunch of STCs for their stuff so a lot of versions are rare special snowflakes, but they have enough "regular" STCs to make ships out of.
C) The Empire is largely holding out because all its enemies are bunch of disgusting Xenos. If you're a governor of some backass world faced with an Ork or Tyranid invasion, your choices are fight and win or die. If you're face by a relatively humane human regime, which will let you have your planetary autonomy and stop sacrificing your citizens to the Emperor, you're much more likely to surrender. Hell, I'd expect half of the Empire to be in various kind of rebellions after a couple years of fight against Star Wars/ Star Trek/ Honorverse / Most of the other.There were factions who acted like your regular Star Wars/Star Trek/Honorverse/Whatever guys, with being happy utopian shits. Half of Great Crusade and things like Macharian Crusade is about Imperium bashing some happy hippie shits who though they can be less Grimdark and most of people from Imperial side didin't even think about that it would be better life, and those who did were usually way too devoted anyways. Your life may be better, but Imperium has thousands of years of indoctrination...
Do they have more of an effect on enemies that are familiar with them? Frightening Aztec I get, but European soldiers?Yes, being shot at is still scary even if you know how guns work. Maybe ESPECIALLY if you know how guns work, because you're highly aware of what the enemy is doing and oh god they just finished reloading... *bang* *wince* Oh I'm alive! Better shoot back.
Von Angeli described the fight for Baumersdorf in 1809 between the Austrians and the French 57th Line Regiment: "One exchanged musketry at very close range. The enormous din, as wave upon wave of musketry constantly erupted ...is completely beyond the imagination. Evrything, even the thunder of the numerous cannon, seemed insignificant amid the raging storm of the so-called smallarms."
During WW2 approx. 500.000 men were discharged from USA Army for psychiatric reasons. This is said that 101 psychiatric casualties per 1.000 men per year were recorded in the First Army (USA) in Europe. Source: Kellet - "Combat motivation" p 272
Sergeant Wheeler of the British 51st Regiment of Foot at Waterloo: "There were nearly a hundred of them, all cuirassiers. ... We saw them coming and were prepared, we opened our fire, the work was done in an instant. ... One other was saved by Cpt. Ross from being put to death by some of the Brunswickers."
Cpt. Ross: "There were 12 horses and 8 cuirassiers killed on this occassion..." The remainder were dispersed.
So before the invention of guns, are pikes still the game-winner of the battlefield?Any kind of spear is your go-to weapon for any era up until the 18th century when firearms really began dominating the battlefield. They're simply excellent weapons for being cheap and easy to use. A peasant will be much happier with a spear to keep his enemy at a distance than with a sword, which is a much more personal weapon.
I imagine in forester areas you'd prefer the better skirmishing potential of the Romans, but on plains I'm assuming it's a non-contest.
Also the stuff I've heard about a thicket of upraised spears being partial cover against arrows... Malarkey, or plausible?
So before the invention of guns, are pikes still the game-winner of the battlefield?
I imagine in forester areas you'd prefer the better skirmishing potential of the Romans, but on plains I'm assuming it's a non-contest.
Also the stuff I've heard about a thicket of upraised spears being partial cover against arrows... Malarkey, or plausible?
Do they have more of an effect on enemies that are familiar with them? Frightening Aztec I get, but European soldiers?Yes, being shot at is still scary even if you know how guns work. Maybe ESPECIALLY if you know how guns work, because you're highly aware of what the enemy is doing and oh god they just finished reloading... *bang* *wince* Oh I'm alive! Better shoot back.
Combat is extremely, EXTREMELY STRESSFUL. Men often simply loaded their muskets without firing them in order to please their officers. Once you're on the line, the individual man begins to feel alone, and becomes concerned only with the safety of his own life.
Yeah, post-calibre firearms are pretty much just better (hence crossbows not seeing much use on the modern field of battle). Pre-calibre it's a little stickier, because either reloading or ammunition manufacture becomes more complicated.My apologies, but I'm slightly puzzled by one thing. What do you mean by "post-calibre"? Is calibre not simply a measurement of the internal diameter of the barrel? Are you referring to standardization of calibers in gun design?
Not related to musket combat but relevant:QuoteDuring WW2 approx. 500.000 men were discharged from USA Army for psychiatric reasons. This is said that 101 psychiatric casualties per 1.000 men per year were recorded in the First Army (USA) in Europe. Source: Kellet - "Combat motivation" p 272
Sure, but, would the psychological effect of early firearms be be that much stronger than with bows/crossbows?
Yeah, post-calibre firearms are pretty much just better (hence crossbows not seeing much use on the modern field of battle). Pre-calibre it's a little stickier, because either reloading or ammunition manufacture becomes more complicated.My apologies, but I'm slightly puzzled by one thing. What do you mean by "post-calibre"? Is calibre not simply a measurement of the internal diameter of the barrel? Are you referring to standardization of calibers in gun design?
Sure, but, would the psychological effect of early firearms be be that much stronger than with bows/crossbows?Didn't I just answer this question? Guns have a much stronger psychological effect because of the noise they make. It's well established how utterly nerve wracking the sound of artillery and gunfire is. Part of the reason volley fire was so common is because a rank of 100 people firing all at the same time is much louder than 100 people firing as fast as they can.
Also, another questions: would medieval bowmen fire volleys as seen in every fantsy movie ever, or just shoot as fast as they can?
Also about the point Gunin is making, Lindybeige (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg) has a video somewhat related to that, mostly in how battle fatigue is a rather new concept when it comes to wars, partly because of the introduction of firearms (and in part due to the change in society and general value of human life).Yes. I was thinking of exactly that video while I was writing that.
Where can i find info on spaceborne macro cannons?BFG sourcebook is your best bet, being free online at this point, given how long ago GW discontinued it.
Also, given that ramming is a viable tactic in BFG, thats a sign the imperium lack range.
Erkki: My understanding is that bayonet charge where few, soldiers peppering each other for a relatively long time was common.
Gunin: I doubt archers would generally have shot in volleys. To open, certainly, but thereafter archers shoot fast enough that it's still scary to just keep going, and it puts out more arrows.Arrows are expensive, and archers did not carry enough arrows with them into battle for individual rate of fire to matter much at all, so no, whenever possible archers would fire in volleys. The only exception I could imagine would be in a siege, but even then the value of a volley cannot be understated.
Also, when one of the Nassaus (forget which) devised volley fire, he thought it was brilliant, implying it wasn't much of a thing for crossbowmen. And if crossbows didn't, archers almost certainly didn't.
The baggage animals must follow behind the rear ranks of the infantry, carrying the Imperial arrows of each infantry division, 15,000, so as to provide each set of three-hundred bowmen with fifty arrows each apart from their own quivers. It is up to the chiliarch to count them out beforehand and bind together each bundle of fifty, then put them away in their designated containers, either boxes or casks.
-- Praecepta Militaria, On Infantry
Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England has a wonderful summary of exactly the question you're asking. When Henry V succeeded the throne, he immediately began restocking the royal armoury in the Tower of London for a foray into France. He set the fletchers of England to begin making arrows, and we have a record of a contract for 12,000 arrows that cost the Crown £37, 10s, which translates to about $25,000. Arrows were produced in sheaves of 24, and archers carried between 60-75 with them into battle. They were expected to be able to shoot about 12-20 arrows per minute (An archer who could shoot no more than 10 arrows per minute was considered to be unfit for military service. Each archer carried two sheaves of arrows in his quiver and the rest stuck in his belt for quick and easy access, though he may have stuck them in the ground when he was entrenched in a position (say, Agincourt.) Each archer could therefore only shoot for about 3.5-7 minutes with the arrows he had (which is NOTHING in a battle. Seriously, 5 minutes of shooting and you're outta ammo? That's crazy.), so there were wagons that were also filled with arrows, and young boys provided a constant transport of arrows from those wagons to the front lines.
I'm not sure what you mean. I did say that they didn't carry many arrows, and that post proves my point exactly. I'm contending that firing at will doesn't save you any time if the troops are properly drilled.
Can you prove that they fired at will and not in volleys?
No. And that's not a particularly helpful comment, since you can't prove the converse.Fair enough.
With peer pressure and direction from officers you can make everyone hit the same spot. Why trust individuals to judge their shots when you can control their fire to ensure that everyone hits the advancing enemy?
Men were drilled because they needed to do as ordered, it was the officers who needed to be able to think independently. Allowing individual decision-making might increase rate of fire for the more skilled individuals, but for others it would slow their rate of fire to below average or make them so inaccurate as to be useless, or reducing the effectiveness of the fire while increasing its volume. The structure of armies for all time has always revolved around lowering the total amount of decisions that need to be made.
Star Wars strategies haven't changed because they've found what works. For them, at any rate. But stuff was still and is still being developed. Differences are more subtle, like cruise missiles vs. carriers or battlecruisers vs. dreadnoughts, but they're still there.Examples of what exactly has changed would be nice.
This doesn't make sense to me. If the archers aren't shooting at the enemies, your problem isn't going to be solved by volleys. If your officers are trying to pick out specific targets between volleys, you're likely wasting a lot of time. You can shout back, forward, left or right during continuous shooting as well as with volleys, I would think.But that's how you use archers. You don't just put as many arrows downrange as possible, you target formations in order to stop them from attacking or prepare them for an attack. You also can't direct the unit as a group if everyone isn't aiming at the same thing.
Shooting at will doesn't involve decisions, though. You're not trying to choose targets or anything any more than you are in volleys. You're just shooting as fast as you can instead of pausing to synchronise.
1. Galactic Empire owns an entire galaxy, Federation has about a fourth of one. Point Empire here.I am pretty sure this isin't a thing. More like 3/4 or half of galaxy.
Well that's still technically a point for the Empire, but I am gleeful nonetheless :P1. Galactic Empire owns an entire galaxy, Federation has about a fourth of one. Point Empire here.I am pretty sure this isin't a thing. More like 3/4 or half of galaxy.
Actually, have a map. (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/9/93/Reconquest_of_the_Rim.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151029161051)
Since the UFP doesn't even own the entire alpha quadrant, and instead shares it with the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, and whoever else, TGE owning sixty percent or so of their galaxy is an enormous point in their favor.The Cardassians aren't in the alpha quadrant, but the BETA quadrant. That's where DS9 is.
Also, while this doesn't really give you numbers, it gives some sense of scale and where people actually live. (http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090903055032/starwars/images/6/6c/GalacticPopulation.jpg)Well that's still technically a point for the Empire, but I am gleeful nonetheless :P1. Galactic Empire owns an entire galaxy, Federation has about a fourth of one. Point Empire here.I am pretty sure this isin't a thing. More like 3/4 or half of galaxy.
Actually, have a map. (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/9/93/Reconquest_of_the_Rim.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151029161051)
Star Wars strategies haven't changed because they've found what works. For them, at any rate. But stuff was still and is still being developed. Differences are more subtle, like cruise missiles vs. carriers or battlecruisers vs. dreadnoughts, but they're still there.Examples of what exactly has changed would be nice.
As far as I can tell the biggest tech changes in the entirity of Star Wars canon are the Death Star and the Kaminoans perfecting cloning. These were both developed during the prequel movies, so I can only presume Palpatine was Evil Space Da Vinci.
I searched for volleys and archers on google and can't find any historical sources one way or another. One nice point someone made is that by shooting in volley, you can be sure all your archers are effectivelly shooting in cadence. Otherwise, a lot of them might be distracted, considering fleeing or doing something else than pouring arrows downrange as far as possible. Making them shoot in volley, just like making infantry goosestep, is a nice way to keep them all focused on the task and easily controllable.Another thing to note is that it's sortof like MRSI is for artillery nowadays. You can take evasive action to some degree against a single archer. Harder to do that against fifty. Morale impact helps too. But I'm pretty sure that once they got real close that it was basically fire at will. Once volleys would be less volleys and more horizontal sheets, that is.
Err, the Cardies are in the Alpha Quadrant, as is Bajor. The Klingons and Romulans are in the Beta Quadrant, as are the Vulcans. Also, as a bit of a Trekkie myself, I think you're significantly overstating the size of the Federation. The amount of space explored by the great powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants is maybe about half of each quadrant. The UFP covers around 8000 light years in diameter, naturally with estimations given based on where it has met other great powers. This seems rather large to us, but the Milky Way galaxy is at least 100 thousand light years in diameter. In area, even assuming the UFP were a perfect disc from the "top" to "bottom" of the stellar disc, it covers less than 0.6% of the entire galaxy, which is a far cry from a quarter of the galaxy implied by control of half each of two quadrants. I think you mistook "half of the Federation being in each quadrant" with "half of each quadrant is controlled by the Federation".Since the UFP doesn't even own the entire alpha quadrant, and instead shares it with the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, and whoever else, TGE owning sixty percent or so of their galaxy is an enormous point in their favor.The Cardassians aren't in the alpha quadrant, but the BETA quadrant. That's where DS9 is.
Federation has about half the Alpha and half the Beta quadrant under its control. Earth is literally the dividing line between the two quadrants.
So they effectively control 1/4 of their galaxy.
But yeah, like I said, still point Empire.
I can't speak for fire at will commands, as I'm not even sure if they existed when or how they were usedNo. And that's not a particularly helpful comment, since you can't prove the converse.Fair enough.
The advantages of volley fire outweigh any advantage you might gain in rate of fire. Men firing as they wish are going to be inaccurate. With peer pressure and direction from officers you can make everyone hit the same spot. Why trust individuals to judge their shots when you can control their fire to ensure that everyone hits the advancing enemy? There is also this impression that volley fire is somehow significantly slower than firing at will. If anything everyone will be faster by proceeding in a coordinated and instinctive manner, doing as they have been trained rather than being under pressure to make difficult decisions on their own.
Men were drilled because they needed to do as ordered, it was the officers who needed to be able to think independently. Allowing individual decision-making might increase rate of fire for the more skilled, confident, and independently-minded individuals, but for others it would slow their rate of fire to below average or make them so inaccurate as to be useless, or reducing the effectiveness of the fire while increasing its volume. The structure of armies for all time has always revolved around lowering the total amount of decisions that need to be made.
My point is that a higher rate of fire does not necessarily lead to more effective fire.
The French men-at-arms were highly aware of the presence of English longbows, which is why they chose to wear their heaviest configuration of armor that day.Yes, but to the full extent it can hardly be said - consider that whilst the English camp was sombre, miserable and Henry expected to die fighting, the French camp was jubilant, celebrating before their assumed victory, fighting each other for the honour of being first into battle
Part of the question would also then be the amount of training and discipline you could expect from your troops.As the saying goes you know, I think it's one of those well known things now that gets thrown around every now and then, guns originally took over from longbowmen not because they were more powerful or accurate (initially being both less accurate and less powerful), but because it was far easier to train than than longbowmen
Didn't the French unexpectedly lose almost all of their ranged offensive presence to the damp as well? Doesn't help.Nah they put them at the back of their lines cos they felt they didn't need them
Prob'ly both, honestly. Even if they had used 'em, would have been close to useless.Didn't the French unexpectedly lose almost all of their ranged offensive presence to the damp as well? Doesn't help.Nah they put them at the back of their lines cos they felt they didn't need them
Prob'ly both, honestly. Even if they had used 'em, would have been close to useless.The English and their longbows were in the same damp as the French and their longbows though and were sick, starving, exhausted, supplies overstretched and cut off from retreat. By contrast a quarter of the French army were longbowmen or crossbowmen yet the heavy infantry marched on without their support
Discipline is important, tho'
Henry’s first battle [before he was king] was not against the French, but the English. At Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403 the 16-year-old Henry, Prince of Wales, lined up alongside his father to face the forces of the rebel lord, Henry Percy.No wonder the man was so serious
At Shrewsbury Henry led his forces well, and made a major contribution to the victory. In the course of the battle, however, he was shot in the face by an arrow that entered below his eye, missed both brain and spinal cord and stuck in the bone at the back of the skull. To remove the embedded arrowhead, special tongs had to be designed, made and carefully inserted nearly six inches into the wound to grip and extract the metal.
It took a further three weeks to cleanse and close up the hole – and all this in the days before anaesthetics.
This potentially tells us a lot about just how good armor was at protecting against arrow fire. They were being pelted by arrows and where does he get shot? In the face, through the holes in his visor presumably.QuoteHenry’s first battle [before he was king] was not against the French, but the English. At Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403 the 16-year-old Henry, Prince of Wales, lined up alongside his father to face the forces of the rebel lord, Henry Percy.No wonder the man was so serious
At Shrewsbury Henry led his forces well, and made a major contribution to the victory. In the course of the battle, however, he was shot in the face by an arrow that entered below his eye, missed both brain and spinal cord and stuck in the bone at the back of the skull. To remove the embedded arrowhead, special tongs had to be designed, made and carefully inserted nearly six inches into the wound to grip and extract the metal.
It took a further three weeks to cleanse and close up the hole – and all this in the days before anaesthetics.
Furthermore, the longbow in the hand of an experienced longbowman, packed quite a punch with its capacity to even puncture (early-period) steel armor over a substantial distance. This is what Gerald of Wales, the Cambro-Norman archdeacon and historian of 12th century, had to say about the Welsh longbow (the precursor to the ‘English’ variety)-Dank
…n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.
http://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/05/03/10-interesting-facts-english-longbowman/
In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus mail armour.Recommended read in regards to modern testing (http://www.liquisearch.com/english_longbow/use_and_performance/range_and_penetration)
However, even heavy-draw longbows have trouble penetrating well-made steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350.
Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows."Oh hey, my armchair general thoughts on the psychological effects turned out to not be total bullshit
Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows, however there are a number of caveats to this point; not all plate armour was well-made or well looked after, and there were also weak points in the eye and air holes and joints where arrows could penetrate, meaning that even if the armour was proof against nearly all arrows, being shot at by thousands of longbowmen would have been an uncomfortable experience, physically and mentally. One contemporary French account described the barrage at Agincourt against French knights wearing plate armour as a "terrifying hail of arrow shot".
Body armor can't stop a rifle round at under 100 meters, why wear it?Most engagements don't happen at under 100m unless you're doing MOUT, and that is an acceptable risk when wearing more armor would be really awful for a rifleman's stamina. Not to mention that the insurgents in Afghanistan today normally initiate ambushes from 200-300m*.
If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?It did though. Also because you fight more than arrows. Like, you know. Swords and shit. And those can be a lot more deadly than an arrow. An arrow, as long as it doesn't hit something vital and you don't get gangrene, you'll live. Look at Henry. You take a sword to the face and you're dead. Armor helps a lot with that. Like, a lot a lot.
-snip-Do consider the enemy the US military finds themselves up against today. Most insurgents don't wear body armor, therefore distributing a carbine increases effectiveness, because the soldiers have a handier and lighter weapon and you still have plenty firepower for reducing infantry.
That was my point. People wore armor because it was fantastic protection against the weapons of the day. And armor doesn't just refer to plate. This idea of longbows arrows punching through the thickest part of plate armor, the chainmail underneath, the gambeson underneath that, and then wounding the man underneath, is ridiculous.If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?It did though.
High muzzle velocity is really helpful when you're zeroing sights as well. If you set your sights for 300m on the M-16 and shoot center mass on a standing target at 200m you'll still hit him. Or at least you won't miss by very much.
Do consider the enemy the US military finds themselves up against today. Most insurgents don't wear body armor, therefore distributing a carbine increases effectiveness, because the soldiers have a handier and lighter weapon and you still have plenty firepower for reducing infantry.
I would like to agree but I don't think an army should optimize too much for fighting a fairly weak, secondary foe in an asymmetric war somewhere in sandbox. Where the performance matters most is a real shooting war against a large, organized, modern enemy, and the US potentially has several of those.But we're not in a real shooting war with an large, modern enemy, and it's been shown that the same tactics and weapons you use against that kind of threat are not the kind you ought to bring to bear against this type of threat. It is also a mistake to assume they're weak or disorganized, at least in the case of Afghanistan, where the enemy has been practicing their insurgency techniques for half a century, and they've managed to effectively ambush Marines time and again. Not to mention this conflict has been dragged out for more than two decades. At some point you need to adapt or die. Obviously they can never win, but we can make things less costly by adapting our weapons and tactics to the situation.
That was my point. People wore armor because it was fantastic protection against the weapons of the day. And armor doesn't just refer to plate. This idea of longbows arrows punching through the thickest part of plate armor, the chainmail underneath, the gambeson underneath that, and then wounding the man underneath, is ridiculous.If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?It did though.
I would like to agree but I don't think an army should optimize too much for fighting a fairly weak, secondary foe in an asymmetric war somewhere in sandbox. Where the performance matters most is a real shooting war against a large, organized, modern enemy, and the US potentially has several of those.But we're not in a real shooting war with an large, modern enemy, and it's been shown that the same tactics and weapons you use against that kind of threat are not the kind you ought to bring to bear against this type of threat. It is also a mistake to assume they're weak or disorganized, at least in the case of Afghanistan, where the enemy has been practicing their insurgency techniques for half a century, and they've managed to effectively ambush Marines time and again. Not to mention this conflict has been dragged out for more than two decades. At some point you need to adapt or die. Obviously they can never win, but we can make things less costly by adapting our weapons and tactics to the situation.
I don't see how the US military could make itself more prepared for war by avoiding a fight.
Is this still related to assault rifles?
If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?The high quality armour could most of the time, check the article - in battles where the French were not hindered by terrain, their frontline infantry (consisting of noblemen best able to afford the best steel and best armour) were essentially physically unaffected by longbow arrows. Also there's a minor note alongside all the caveats that isn't mentioned but I saw somewhere else, a Knight wearing wrought iron armour or hit at a weak point charging on horseback is a fast moving object colliding with a fast moving object, which would certainly help things (assuming the horse isn't killed, horses weren't as well armoured).
Yep. Ceramic plates vs. AKs and Kevlar vs Carbines, Cast-Iron plate vs Longbows and Steel plate vs Crossbows.Cast iron would not be used for plate armour, it is too brittle
You don't always need protection. You always need comfort.
You don't always need protection. You always need comfort.
And yet peasants were able to poke big sticks at other peasants no problem? I wonder if culture has changed.Your mistake, I think, is in assuming no one in medieval times had any problems with killing each other in combat just because there are no recorded instances of people becoming depressed after killing someone in combat. What we do know is that there is no culture in existence that hasn't punished people for murder, and also had a form of murder that was considered justified. That in itself is evidence for the instinctive urge to not kill one another to be ingrained in us as a species.
You don't always need protection. You always need comfort.Said no tanker ever.
How much body armor do Tankers wear? Do they wear ceramic plates and the whole get-up while in the tank? Far as I know, they're not carrying 150+ lbs of gear for hours, most of the time. They're a lot more comfy(sorta) to start with, and also a lot more vulnerable because they're a more valuable target than a single infantryman.You don't always need protection. You always need comfort.Said no tanker ever.
And yet peasants were able to poke big sticks at other peasants no problem? I wonder if culture has changed.
Uh, I mean the tanks armour, not the crews body armour. No tanker would suggest removing armour modules for more legroom.
:p
Oh I'm sure the driver getting a cramp was a bigger problem than having an untrained crew, volatile easily detonatable ammunition, plumbing leaking flammable fluids everywhere, turret that can cut limbs off particularly when retrieving shells stored under the floor, an engine choking on improper airflow through poorly designed air filters, and finally those same leaky air filters allowing in contaminates which ruin the engine in a few hundred kilometers.Uh, I mean the tanks armour, not the crews body armour. No tanker would suggest removing armour modules for more legroom.
:p
One of the biggest problems with the T-34 was the lack of legroom for the driver. Ergonomics means reaction time and reaction time is life and death.
Soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy has been a problem through history. A normal human being just cant kill another just like that, many not even when in danger themselves.
I suppose that in the past the lack of hesitation and will to kill was what was partly giving mounted knights, drunk Vikings or the Huns their fearsome reputation. In modern times, its one of the reasons why soldiers are drilled. The more automatic things become, the smaller the last step of aiming the weapon at the enemy and pulling the trigger becomes.
Its also why say in many drills the pop-up targets are torso-shaped and may be camouflaged: the soldier stops looking for a white or yellow target but rather something shaped like a human with clothing on it, to automatically take aim and fire.
All very minor problems compared to comfort.
Yeah thats right, only about 25% or so of the US soldiers consciously shot at the enemy in WW2. Even against the Japanese.Far as I knew, it was about 15-20%. Though that might have been Allied soldiers in general. It's hard to kill your fellow man in a stressful situation, strange as it may sound. You have to be trained to do it on automatic. 55% in Korean War, 95% in Vietnamese war. Crew weapons almost always fired, though, and 'key' weapons like flamethrowers were usually fired, compared to the generic rifleman.
All those points are valid, every source I've heard has said the t35 was a death trap of epic proportions.All very minor problems compared to comfort.
I didn't say that they were minor problems. But the fact that it physically took extreme effort to steer the tank is an ergonomic problem. Try disabling the power steering on your car sometime. You can still drive it, it just requires you put some strength into it. You wont drive as well.
Shell stowage sure helps but mostly tank survival came down to whether they saw danger in time. The side that shot first, be it tanks or static artillery, almost always came out the better. Having your driver able to do their job to the best of their abilities matters a lot in avoiding ambushes or engaging rapidly. Also proper shell stowage might help you survive a hit but being able to evacuate quickly will also help you survive.
And the lack of range on T34s ended up not mattering too much. Those tanks only needed to last 300 km anyway because the Soviets planned their operations around that assumption.
Also they praised the dodgy build quality, stating that perhaps it would be good to cut more corners where applicable to produce more vechicles.
I am now Nazi Germany allied with Communist Poland which is in Axis and we fight against Falangist Poland and there's also second war I have with neutral Poland which has Allies on it's side and there's yet ANOTHER war with Democratic Poland which is apparently SOMEHOW allied with Soviet Union.
What the actual fuck. I just wanted Fascist Poland.
TBH, I never even played Germany. They are so OP I just dont see any challenge. The hard difficulty setting doesn't really increase the difficulty of anyone but France (who is starving for PP points).
Kot = Post traumatic spandau disorderGeee, where I heard this joke before...
Just be grateful that you haven't been subjected to gorillion folded nippon steel so sharp it cut through GodKot = Post traumatic spandau disorderGeee, where I heard this joke before...
Can katanas cut through Bren barrels?No, because bren barrels are too accurate, they get +5 to dodging
I have heard, somewhere, that folding is a property of Damascus steel, not actually katanas.Folding is done on low quality iron, not Damascus steel, of which the manner in which it was forged is lost
Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.
Sorry yeah I was talking modern.I heard unintentional nanotechnology and special ores.
The original Damascus steel I believe involved green wood and other weird illuminati secrets.
Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC. Europeans did the same thing in early middle ages with like Ulfberhts and stuff, albeit details vary.
Damascus steel was basically Valyrian steel, to the point that some German sciencists reported carbon nanotubes and nanowires (wat) in those. Like, not (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28observ.html?_r=0) even joking. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html)Have you read about the roman goblet?
If you look at a resource map of japan there are few natural sources of iron ore, and lots of coal mines.Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC. Europeans did the same thing in early middle ages with like Ulfberhts and stuff, albeit details vary.
Have you read about the roman goblet?Roman magic/acient aliens. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_Cup)
If you look at a resource map of japan there are few natural sources of iron ore, and lots of coal mines.Uh, I think the whole deal is actually about that their iron was contaminated as fuck and they didin't have a lot of it so that's what the whole fuss about. I dunno, really.
Don't be so rough on katanas though, the meme is funny and it's true they weren't wonder weapons and that majority of them were dog shit, but some of them, the expensive ones, were actually pretty good. I am not arguing that it was actually used as main weapon, but there is only so many ways you can fuck up a sharp metal stick and I refuse to belive they were as bad or as good as memes make them out to be. The truth is proably somewhere in between.No, the truth is they're good for slicing peasants and drawing on a charging Mongolian, that's where it ends. You take a weapon that's used as a shite sidearm, forget how to make it in three dark ages, stick with the same design for 1300 years and what have you got? A shit inflexible sword whose purpose is romanticism and policing
[Citation Need]Don't be so rough on katanas though, the meme is funny and it's true they weren't wonder weapons and that majority of them were dog shit, but some of them, the expensive ones, were actually pretty good. I am not arguing that it was actually used as main weapon, but there is only so many ways you can fuck up a sharp metal stick and I refuse to belive they were as bad or as good as memes make them out to be. The truth is proably somewhere in between.No, the truth is they're good for slicing peasants and drawing on a charging Mongolian, that's where it ends. You take a weapon that's used as a shite sidearm, forget how to make it in three dark ages, stick with the same design for 1300 years and what have you got? A shit inflexible sword whose purpose is romanticism and policing
I've done my bit (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=59069.msg3812062#msg3812062)God Emperor, I got cancer just by listening to first 5 seconds of the Cringemaster America speaking.
Dont you know? In WWII US marines targeted the guys with the katana's first.My grandfather was killed by a weeb, I'll be killed by a weeb, and my grandchildren will be killed by more weebs still. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJAcc24qPyo)
TBH, I never even played Germany. They are so OP I just dont see any challenge. The hard difficulty setting doesn't really increase the difficulty of anyone but France (who is starving for PP points).
Is it that bad? I was looking forward to a grueling air war against Britain and the US. I guess boosting Germany is needed if you ever want them to take France in the course of a normal game.
Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC. Europeans did the same thing in early middle ages with like Ulfberhts and stuff, albeit details vary.
Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC. Europeans did the same thing in early middle ages with like Ulfberhts and stuff, albeit details vary.
THIS IS A LIE. Japanese iron deposits are some of the highest grade on Earth. Source: My wife is a geologist(BS)/chemist(BS)/geochemist(MS)/Soil and crop science(pending PhD). I'm done giving a damn about what anyone says about the sword or the smiths but I will not tolerate this kind of willful ignorance.
Any suggestion for a nice challenge then mainiac?
You can always play spehss 4x
Ryukyu only, no save/loading, final destinationAny suggestion for a nice challenge then mainiac?
Poland and Gaunxi are fun but after that there are no more worlds to conquer, Alexander.
Hot damn son. We're all (armchair) scholars here. You teach, I'll listen.I'm done giving a damn about what anyone says about the sword or the smiths but I will not tolerate this kind of willful ignorance.Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC.
Not in the game?Damn. Then Cuba? I remember it being very shit-out-of-luck on opportunities to break out and do shit.
This guy:Afaik the katanas are only folded 'cos that's how oldtimeyjaps made steel.Their steel was shit, as in it was hard to make it into a sword, not that the finished product was bad, and the easiest way to get it right was folding, IIRC. Europeans did the same thing in early middle ages with like Ulfberhts and stuff, albeit details vary.
THIS IS A LIE. Japanese iron deposits are some of the highest grade on Earth. Source: My wife is a geologist(BS)/chemist(BS)/geochemist(MS)/Soil and crop science(pending PhD). I'm done giving a damn about what anyone says about the sword or the smiths but I will not tolerate this kind of willful ignorance.
This is surprising to me because I have seen many mentions of the opposite over the years. Questions:
1) When you say they are high grade, are the high grade deposits ones that would have been accessible to pre-industrial japan?
2) Do you know where people would have gotten the idea that the opposite is true? (Seeing as it is so common.)
3) Why did Japan use techniques that are associated with low grade iron like excessive folding?
The Japanese bladesmiths were not pleased to learn about their swords snapping in Mongolian brigandine armor.How does the sword break after it's been thrust into the armor? Some kind of Mongolian sorcery? What sounds more likely is that the sword would get stuck, and then the attacker would be killed after his victim recovered and struck him a blow. My other question is: what kind of idiot thrusts into the armored part of his enemy?
I belive there is actually retarded variation of Katanas. Fat katanas, slim katanas, light katanas, heavy katanas, longer katanas, shorter katanas and whatever, which supposedly made them useful for various tasks, but that might be just modern thing.The same way that there is absolutely ridiculous variation in weapons in every other country in the world.
How does the sword break after it's been thrust into the armor? Some kind of Mongolian sorcery?Take an inflexible piece of metal and jam it into something. If it does not bend, it breaks. The Katana is inflexible, so it breaks.
If that's true, then why would someone who uses a katana ever thrust into his opponent's armor? If your sword breaks, you die, so you would do everything in your power not to do that.How does the sword break after it's been thrust into the armor? Some kind of Mongolian sorcery?Take an inflexible piece of metal and jam it into something. If it does not bend, it breaks. The Katana is inflexible, so it breaks.
Thrust into a joint. Blade stopped by leather or what have you underneath. Yank sword or hold on as armor wearer moves. Blade snaps.But your previous narrative contends that this was somehow unique to Mongolian armor. How? Was this same situation you paint impossible with Japanese armor?
That's what I remember reading, at any rate.
Dont you know? In WWII US marines targeted the guys with the katana's first.
The point was that there isin't just a single version of katana that was used for 200000000 years straight with no variation.I belive there is actually retarded variation of Katanas. Fat katanas, slim katanas, light katanas, heavy katanas, longer katanas, shorter katanas and whatever, which supposedly made them useful for various tasks, but that might be just modern thing.The same way that there is absolutely ridiculous variation in weapons in every other country in the world.
If it's made from two seperate pieces of metal? I don't think any other swords do that.What?
Course, with modern metallurgy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHsfGWkO7SM) you can do some neat stuff. I like the stupid tough tool steels myself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHm_pJceN5Q) Though I doubt you'll find someone doing that with one of the pretty L6 swords. (http://summerchild.com/hc_dragonL6.htm) Nothing magical or mystical or superior about the katana though, it's a toy in this day and age, and those same steels will produce crazy durable blades in any shape you like. Key words being "shape you like", if you like them, cool, if not, cool. All I wanted growing up was a stick I couldn't break, closest I got for years was a fiberglass pickaxe handle that I carved a grip into, until I saw the polypropylene bokkens (https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Steel-Bokken-Polypropylene-Handle/dp/B0009QRRUG?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0) (which also come in waster form!), still want one of the pretty hickory ones (http://kingfisherwoodworks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=kf&Product_Code=iwamals&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1) but $20 vs $120 is a significant difference for something I'm going to use for smashing brush out of the way.Don't be so rough on katanas though, the meme is funny and it's true they weren't wonder weapons and that majority of them were dog shit, but some of them, the expensive ones, were actually pretty good. I am not arguing that it was actually used as main weapon, but there is only so many ways you can fuck up a sharp metal stick and I refuse to belive they were as bad or as good as memes make them out to be. The truth is proably somewhere in between.No, the truth is they're good for slicing peasants and drawing on a charging Mongolian, that's where it ends. You take a weapon that's used as a shite sidearm, forget how to make it in three dark ages, stick with the same design for 1300 years and what have you got? A shit inflexible sword whose purpose is romanticism and policing
There are a bunch of beavers near my house, so if I walked along the waterfront or the edges of the swampy bits I could be all-but-guaranteed a nice, almost-straight stick, neatly severed at the ends and cleared of all bark in an attractive pattern. I sure went through a lot of them, willow shoots being willow shoots, but it was very convenient.Oh god I loved finding a bunch of beaver shorn branches, little bastards are not just cute, but handy!
Gone is the emphasis on modular systems and crewing, a complicated manning arrangement that would have three crews rotate between two hulls and mixing the two different types of hulls in East and West coast homeports.
Instead, the Navy will divide 24 planned LCS into six divisions of four ships each – three divisions of Freedom-class ships based at Naval Station Mayport, Fla. and three divisions of Independence-class LCS based at Naval Station San Diego, Calif. – commander, Naval Surface Forces Vice Adm. Tom Rowden told reporters on Thursday.
Each of the divisions will be tasked, crewed and equipped with a specific LCS mission – mine countermeasures (MCM), surface warfare (SuW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Each hull will be manned by two crews – blue and gold – like the service’s nuclear ballistic and guided missile submarines.
PARIS --- After spending billions of dollars, the US Navy has finally abandoned the Littoral Combat Ship concept, saying it will turn the first four LCSs into training ships and that all future vessels will be equipped for a single combat mission.
Although deliberately worded to minimize its import, the US Navy statement below is a clear acknowledgement that the LCS concept has been an abysmal failure.
But, even as it looks to mitigate the disastrous effects of having ordered a dozen LCS at once, before checking whether they performed as claimed (they have not), the Navy makes no mention of having found the technical faults which have struck four LCS ships this year.
In the statement below, the Navy announces it is abandoning the LCS’ most prized objectives (interchangeable mission modules; innovative but complex crewing arrangements) which were supposed to turn inexpensive small ships with small crews into potent combatants in coastal regions.
By turning the four Littoral Combat Ships it has commissioned to date into training ships, the Navy is also admitting they are operationally worthless.
So the LCS concept is a total failure, and the billions of dollars spent so far have been wasted, despite each one having cost about half a billion dollars.
Trust the US to figure out how to make a cheap, simple concept complex and expensive. :PHey, Dolly Parton said it best: it costs a lot of money to look this cheap. ^_^
Trust the US to figure out how to make a cheap, simple concept complex and expensive. :P
Unless you're trying to starve them out, giving aid greatly helps the civies and won't help them that much, unless you're including bullets in your aid package.
As for letting them leave rather than forcing unconditionnal surrender, it's usually because it's much easier to negotiate a deal where they leave, so you don't have to spend as much time hunting them down in a city, killing people.
Unless you're trying to starve them out, giving aid greatly helps the civies and won't help them that much, unless you're including bullets in your aid package.
As for letting them leave rather than forcing unconditionnal surrender, it's usually because it's much easier to negotiate a deal where they leave, so you don't have to spend as much time hunting them down in a city, killing people.
Yep. It's important not to win your siege and lose the war, especially when public opinion in the appeal to citizenry and real countries is a major part of the war.
Unless you're trying to starve them out, giving aid greatly helps the civies and won't help them that much, unless you're including bullets in your aid package.
As for letting them leave rather than forcing unconditionnal surrender, it's usually because it's much easier to negotiate a deal where they leave, so you don't have to spend as much time hunting them down in a city, killing people.
Yep. It's important not to win your siege and lose the war, especially when public opinion in the appeal to citizenry and real countries is a major part of the war.
Except Assad evidently doesn't care about public opinion very much.
He still does provide aid to some civilians in enemy-held territories, though. (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/aleppo-syria-assad-214494) He doesn't care about opinion of people who back his enemies, yes, but he still takes care to maintain the semblance of... not legitimacy, but rather, normalcy, to his people:Unless you're trying to starve them out, giving aid greatly helps the civies and won't help them that much, unless you're including bullets in your aid package.
As for letting them leave rather than forcing unconditionnal surrender, it's usually because it's much easier to negotiate a deal where they leave, so you don't have to spend as much time hunting them down in a city, killing people.
Yep. It's important not to win your siege and lose the war, especially when public opinion in the appeal to citizenry and real countries is a major part of the war.
Except Assad evidently doesn't care about public opinion very much.
The government has survived a failed revolution because it provides what the rebels can never do—a consistent wage and the promise of a modicum of governance. The regime deftly understood early on that it was necessary to preserve the façade of normalcy. The fate of Libyan leader Mu’amar al-Qadhafi provides a stark contrast. After Qadhafi lost the eastern half of his country in a matter of weeks in 2011, he severed rebel held areas from regime-held territory. He cut off the mobile telephone networks. He ceased providing government services there. Qadhafi was under attack and he ensured that all Libyans knew this.
But Assad drew from a different playbook. He continued paying government salaries to civil servants in rebel territory. Utilities such as electricity and water were only cut off in the most besieged of territories. And the government tried its hardest to make residents forget a war was raging outside their cities. Assad has certainly starved out his enemies (food shortages have been a way of life in places like Aleppo for years and shipments of emergency rations have even been intercepted in rebel enclaves such as Daraya outside of Damascus) in ways reminiscent of World War II. But Assad has justified it to his supporters and fence sitters as a necessary move to stomp out the foreign jihadists threatening their existence. While his critics in the West scoff at such claims they resonate among a population that looks around the Middle East and only sees chaos when governments are toppled in the name of freedom and democracy.
Unless you're trying to starve them out, giving aid greatly helps the civies and won't help them that much, unless you're including bullets in your aid package.
As for letting them leave rather than forcing unconditionnal surrender, it's usually because it's much easier to negotiate a deal where they leave, so you don't have to spend as much time hunting them down in a city, killing people.
Yep. It's important not to win your siege and lose the war, especially when public opinion in the appeal to citizenry and real countries is a major part of the war.
Except Assad evidently doesn't care about public opinion very much.
Depends on what sort of public opinion, but yeah.
Starving the defenders means starving the civilians too, and that's unacceptable.
I know what a siege is. If the civilians actually belonged to the defenders, it would be another story entirely, but that's not the case here. Not everyone in that city is friendly with the rebels.Starving the defenders means starving the civilians too, and that's unacceptable.
In modern times at least, but the whole point of a siege is often to simply outlast the enemies food (and possibly water, if it can be choked off) supplies.
Whoa whoa whoa. 20, 000, 000, 0? 200, 000, 000. Two hundred million years ago. That was the end of the Triassic.The point was that there isin't just a single version of katana that was used for 200000000 years straight with no variation.I belive there is actually retarded variation of Katanas. Fat katanas, slim katanas, light katanas, heavy katanas, longer katanas, shorter katanas and whatever, which supposedly made them useful for various tasks, but that might be just modern thing.The same way that there is absolutely ridiculous variation in weapons in every other country in the world.
I think.
T-rex wants a really long katana that he can use with his short babby arms.He'll be looking for a Nodachisaurus.
As an armchair general...Using aid to entice your enemy into surrendering is good. There is the issue however of witholding aid from your citizens who are being held hostage by the enemy, how you keep them supplied without the supplies ending up in the hands of your enemy is a difficult dilemma to solve.
I fail to see the benefits of giving aid(for humane/any reason) when sieging an enemy entrenched with a civilian population. I am of the opinion that giving the civilians aid also means giving the enemy aid. They could take the aid directly from the civilians, end up directly getting some of that aid, and/or they simply have less people to provide for.
Problem appears when your enemy is so deranged that your aid is a sign of weakness for them.
It should be noted that the only way an COIN operation is going to be 100% succesful is literally worse-than-Hitler military police and executions for slightest sign of breaking the law, to the point of literal genocide.
Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.Starving Spartans couldn't resist well-fed Athenians, despite training their whole lives for war. There is a very intrinsic difference between an enemy that cannot eat and an enemy that has eaten
But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.
Problem appears when your enemy is so deranged that your aid is a sign of weakness for them.
It should be noted that the only way an COIN operation is going to be 100% succesful is literally worse-than-Hitler military police and executions for slightest sign of breaking the law, to the point of literal genocide.
Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.
But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.
Problem appears when your enemy is so deranged that your aid is a sign of weakness for them.
It should be noted that the only way an COIN operation is going to be 100% succesful is literally worse-than-Hitler military police and executions for slightest sign of breaking the law, to the point of literal genocide.
Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.
But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.
It sends a weird message.
1: Start an armed revolt
2: Take control of a population area
3: Manage to entrench yourself
4: Get a lifetime guaranteed free food shipments from the gov't you are rebelling against or some international organization
4a: Maybe eventually have weapons/ammo/stuff smuggled in with the food
5: ????
6: .... ???? Declare city-state independence or something?
I guess we could send food to Best Korea.
Considering these are ideological groups, not giving them food is a very good way of giving them rhetorical ammunition. 'See, the West/gov't doesn't care about you! They hate any notion of resistance to their domination, and care not who may suffer as a result; why else would they refuse even such basics as food for the city?'The likelihood of Christians or Shiites joining the jihadists to whom their first introduction was "jizya, wives and death" is very small
Plus, you know who starves first in a siege? Not the people with guns. So the effectiveness is much reduced.Conversely the people who are fed first by aid? The people with the guns, so the effectiveness is much reduced while the combat effectiveness of the enemy is maintained
But yes, that is the typical way rebellions work, though on a larger scale. 4a is doing a lot of work on a flimsy proposition in your scenario. Not that you can't smuggle shit, just that I don't think it's that simple or common as to justify starving out the civilian populace as well.Seems simple when you are fighting an enemy unbound by laws to end them as quickly as possible
The relative effectiveness of 'saturate the area with food so everyone can manage to eat' versus 'starve them out so the civilian populace starves first in the hope that this will make a difference in the fighting ability of terrorists with rocket launchers'.Saturating the area with food puts your own people at risk, reduces your supplies whilst increasing your enemies for certain. This is compared to a strategy of starving your enemy to death, actively reducing their fighting capabilities. How will it not make a difference? Simple thermodynamics, poorly-fed soldiers do less.
People will do crazy shit when they're hungry. Though, wasn't really talking about either of those groups, was more talking about the folks who support the same stuff the terrorists do, but aren't actually radicalized. Win the battle but not the war if you always forego public image.The ones who live in the countryside? Most of the Sunnis who support the same stuff the terrorists do are as much a problem as the terrorists, there isn't much difference between someone who wants to cleanse Syria of Shiites and Christians versus someone who is actively cleansing Syria. At any rate, those groups live in the countryside, not the city
Seems simple, yes. Sadly, little is; for one thing I think it may be a war crime to starve a civilian population, though I'm not certain.Nah, it's not unless it's a deliberate act of genocide or something. In the context of besieging a city, it's a very common occurrence - cities are some of the greatest military targets and objectives in war, and for a military force there are only three options for taking one occupied by enemy forces. The first is street to street fighting that will cost your forces much in lives, the second is besiege it until the defenders are demoralized and incapable/less capable of mounting resistance and the third is do some WWII strategic bombing (freedom the city off the map).
I mean, hell, if you really wanted to end them as quickly as possible and don't care about civilian life or public opinion, we do have access to tactical nuclear weapons.Yeah and we'd also start WWIII by using them, so we can't do much. We're also not the ones besieging these cities, it's the Russian-Syrian-Iranian coalition that is besieging them. The Syrian army is bled dry of soldiers, the Iranians probably could afford it, the Russians certainly can't (especially after their Afghanistan experience), so besieging and utilization of their air superiority is the method that guaranteed highest chance of victory (certainly looking at how they recaptured Aleppo - did work as intended). Moreover a tactical nuclear weapon would kill all of your civilians, if they were populated with your enemy and aiding their war effort such as in Germany, in such a case where total survival was in question yeah that'd be arguable. Simply cutting off supplies to your enemy would be the far more precise tool though, and would guarantee more of your own people surviving, whereas sure a tactical nuclear weapon would kill your enemy but it'd also kill all of your people too. Usage of a nuclear weapon against your own people would guarantee that your public opinion is destroyed; it is also wrong to say there is no care for civilian life or public opinion, merely no care for the public opinion of people who want to exterminate you and are unlikely to change their mind in addition to how civilian life will not be protected under the occupation of an enemy force that wants them exterminated. Starvation will kill many of them, but most will survive - liberation does more for PR than letting your enemy fight (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/12/12/497619/aleppo-liberation-celebration-syria)
But Loud Whispers has a point, as much as I dislike the idea of the collateral damage. If the city's people don't support the terrorists, they're as likely or more to be killed by them as they are by starvation, and the threat of such may drive them to fight back to try and be liberated faster (or at least that would be the hope).They're more likely to keep to themselves, try and hide from the fighting and conserve their energy
I think I was under a different impression as to the population of the city than is the reality; I was thinking they were people neither actively supporting nor being oppressed by the occupiers. Essentially with no stake either way; this is obviously inaccurate, and my fault for not actually thinking through the specifics of this situation. Apologies.It's a complicated situation, for example there are many Sunnis in Aleppo who are family members of the FSA, while the FSA itself starting off as army defectors ended up dominated by jihadists. Within that branch were groups that "only" wanted supremacy of Sunni Islam whilst others actively wanted to purify Syria
Well, don't forget that most deaths would not be directly due to starvation; disease and infection are much more likely to kill if they don't have access to medical supplies and/or personnel and their immune systems are weakened by hunger.But Loud Whispers has a point, as much as I dislike the idea of the collateral damage. If the city's people don't support the terrorists, they're as likely or more to be killed by them as they are by starvation, and the threat of such may drive them to fight back to try and be liberated faster (or at least that would be the hope).They're more likely to keep to themselves, try and hide from the fighting and conserve their energy
It's not a desirable thing to do without regard, as in all likelihood it's the children who will starve to death first, but it is the method most likely to end a siege
*EDIT
Huh, surprisingly few child deaths, overwhelming majority of deaths are adult men. I guess they give their supplies to their kids before themselves (http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/en/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8cHJvdmluY2U9Nnw=)
Interestingly there is 1 recorded death for siege in Aleppo. Most deaths appear to be from airstrikes, shelling, shooting, field executions and executions. I suppose the lethality of cutting a cities' supplies off would increase over time though
I think in a battle between two forces that weren't fighting wars of survival, one would really think twice about completely cutting off supplies to a town or city they intended to administer in future. I guess it's situational?Aye, that's probably about what I was thinking of. Sieges work, certainly, but if you're fighting people who can return to guerilla operations and could use the siege as a recruitment device, it seems risky. If you're in existential crisis mode, where you need to beat them right fucking now or very likely die, the long-term consequences seem more acceptable, somehow.
I definitely agree that shit's pretty fucked, tho
Usually the enemy surrenders before they actually start dying of starvation. That's the desired goal and what's been proven to happen over the course of human history when a force runs out of food.
It's what happens with forces not driven by religious fervor, typically.Not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad) always. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_Siege_of_Leningrad_on_the_city) Maybe typical, but certainly not the only possible outcome. The risk of running a siege is that sometimes your enemy is willing to call your bluff.
Well, don't forget that most deaths would not be directly due to starvation; disease and infection are much more likely to kill if they don't have access to medical supplies and/or personnel and their immune systems are weakened by hunger.I had a flashback to the ME thread and recalled actually there were towns where the same siege tactics had an immense effect on the militants and civilian populace
Aye, that's probably about what I was thinking of. Sieges work, certainly, but if you're fighting people who can return to guerilla operations and could use the siege as a recruitment device, it seems risky. If you're in existential crisis mode, where you need to beat them right fucking now or very likely die, the long-term consequences seem more acceptable, somehow.It doesn't seem risky if the city is occupied, as at that point what matters is not what their trending social media narrative is, but neutralizing/destroying the enemy
I definitely agree that shit's pretty fucked, tho
Not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad) always. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_Siege_of_Leningrad_on_the_city) Maybe typical, but certainly not the only possible outcome. The risk of running a siege is that sometimes your enemy is willing to call your bluff.Who would run a siege as a bluff? Moreover Leningrad the Germans failed to completely cut off all supplies to Leningrad, whose citizens were already fighting to the death. Without Finnish aid and with their forces spread between Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol etc. they were not able to capitulate on any advances or weaknesses, fighting a war of attrition they could ill afford to fight. One of the greatest benefits of this strategy is that it forces the enemy to surrender, however this incentive is completely erased when your side is offering two options:
Who would run a siege as a bluff? Moreover Leningrad the Germans failed to completely cut off all supplies to Leningrad, whose citizens were already fighting to the death. Without Finnish aid and with their forces spread between Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol etc. they were not able to capitulate on any advances or weaknesses, fighting a war of attrition they could ill afford to fight. One of the greatest benefits of this strategy is that it forces the enemy to surrender, however this incentive is completely erased when your side is offering two options:
Every other country in the world simultaneously gets tired of our shit and declares war on the United States of America. What is the result of this?The USA loses, because of fucking course the combined military of every country in the world are eventually going to stomp the USA.
"In the first six to twelve months of a war... I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."Every other country in the world simultaneously gets tired of our shit and declares war on the United States of America. What is the result of this?The USA loses, because of fucking course the combined military of every country in the world are eventually going to stomp the USA.
Surely the USA would only need to destroy Canada, Mexico, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Singapore and Australia and then there would not be anyone actually capable of taking the fight to the USA anymore?N a h.
Ignoring the collapse in international trade and all, the USA itself would be untouched whilst the USA could foray out at their own discretion, and I'm not sure those combined nations would be able to launch a first strike on US soil without running face first into the US navy
If the entire world is against the USA, then that means Mexico and Canada too. There are already "footholds" on the continent. There need not be an opposed landing or a suicidal hike across the Alaskan landscape (seriously, invading through Alaska is not an option).Surely the USA would only need to destroy Canada, Mexico, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Singapore and Australia and then there would not be anyone actually capable of taking the fight to the USA anymore?N a h.
Ignoring the collapse in international trade and all, the USA itself would be untouched whilst the USA could foray out at their own discretion, and I'm not sure those combined nations would be able to launch a first strike on US soil without running face first into the US navy
I mean, the logistics of attacking USA and getting away with it and whatnot aside, you don't neccessarily need aircraft carriers. While, yes, air power would be a big, naval battles could be won without it (anti-air capabilites aside, the main way of hurting ships is pretty much the same when it comes to ships and planes - hueg anti-ship missiles), and all it takes is gettin a foothold on American continent - it doesn't even have to be USA, just some place in America where you can set up your own airfields and then just quickly rebase (while cross-Atlantic/Pacific flights are not something that all modern fighter planes can achieve, there are much closer pieces of America to other continents). Russians could easily get in accross Alaska, French Rafale is ~4k kilometers which is the distance of France to America, ferry range of Eurofighter is also something like that. Australia and Japan are trickier, since Pacific, but I guess if we're already dreaming of someone attacking America, you can as well make them go through Alaska or Antarctica.
Also, purely a food for thought - Poland uses American F-16s and MiG-29s and Su-17, their ferry range is 4,220 km/2,100 km/2,300 km. In any case, we would have to use a part of conquered Western Europe to get to America, but this way we would only be able to use the American planes (sweet irony, USA falling to their own planes... nearly a national sport of theirs, though), but we could also get through the whole Russia and attack America through Alaska and be able to use the Russian planes too.
It should be noted that Winged Hussars have night unlimited range and can strike at any time at any point in world thanks to their superior horse fuel capabilities and perfectly calculated wingspan.
China at least has the capability, and Russia might as well. On paper, at least, since nobody has ever actually field tested an anti-satellite missile. Just because they only have a couple of those missiles now doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to produce more down the line, and it's not like the satellites are going anywhere.
And it's worth remembering that the entirety of Iraq fell in only a couple of weeks, the only reason Canada and Mexico would last longer is that they're a bit larger. Neither of them have a hope to actually stop or even slow down the US military, and any coalition forces that do manage to get past the navy and air force and land there aren't going to be resupplied anytime soon.
China at least has the capability, and Russia might as well. On paper, at least, since nobody has ever actually field tested an anti-satellite missile. Just because they only have a couple of those missiles now doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to produce more down the line, and it's not like the satellites are going anywhere.
And it's worth remembering that the entirety of Iraq fell in only a couple of weeks, the only reason Canada and Mexico would last longer is that they're a bit larger. Neither of them have a hope to actually stop or even slow down the US military, and any coalition forces that do manage to get past the navy and air force and land there aren't going to be resupplied anytime soon.
ASATs have been successfully test-fired at satellites by all three of those nations.
If USA wants to conquer Mexico, they'll have to fight through and occupy Mexico city too. That'll need a lot of troops, and army is where US relatively at least weakest. I'd say no matter how advanced you are right now in terms of hardware, theres only so much you can do when you have 315 million people vs. over 7 billion and have less than 1/4 of GDP and lack, in long term, resources to keep turning that GDP into civilian consumables and war material.
Other satellite navigation systems in use or various states of development include:
GLONASS – Russia's global navigation system. Fully operational worldwide.
Galileo – a global system being developed by the European Union and other partner countries, which began operation in 2016[156] (and is expected to be fully deployed by 2020)
Beidou – People's Republic of China's regional system, currently limited to Asia and the West Pacific,[157] global coverage planned to be operational by 2020[158][159]
IRNSS (NAVIC) – India's regional navigation system, covering India and Northern Indian Ocean
QZSS – Japanese regional system covering Asia and Oceania
China at least has the capability, and Russia might as well. On paper, at least, since nobody has ever actually field tested an anti-satellite missile. Just because they only have a couple of those missiles now doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to produce more down the line, and it's not like the satellites are going anywhere.
And it's worth remembering that the entirety of Iraq fell in only a couple of weeks, the only reason Canada and Mexico would last longer is that they're a bit larger. Neither of them have a hope to actually stop or even slow down the US military, and any coalition forces that do manage to get past the navy and air force and land there aren't going to be resupplied anytime soon.
ASATs have been successfully test-fired at satellites by all three of those nations.
If USA wants to conquer Mexico, they'll have to fight through and occupy Mexico city too. That'll need a lot of troops, and army is where US relatively at least weakest. I'd say no matter how advanced you are right now in terms of hardware, theres only so much you can do when you have 315 million people vs. over 7 billion and have less than 1/4 of GDP and lack, in long term, resources to keep turning that GDP into civilian consumables and war material.
If the entire world is against the USA, then that means Mexico and Canada too. There are already "footholds" on the continent. There need not be an opposed landing or a suicidal hike across the Alaskan landscape (seriously, invading through Alaska is not an option).And tell me, how long is Canada going to last from the declaration of hostilities? Long enough for the major powers to mount a massive reinforcement?
The problem with the US navy is that it'll be contending with rapidly expanding navies.It's questions like this that make me ask "why the fuck does this war happen in the first place?" and "Precisely how long are we talking about?".
You're right, hardware isn't everything. A quality officer corps, well trained and disciplined troops, sound strategic planning, robust logistical service, and a solid NCO corps all contribute to how well an army will actually perform. In all of those categories, with the possible exception of logistics, I have very strong doubts you'll find many militaries that match the USA in more than one or two of those. How useful are a bunch of barely trained African villagers given the minimal training their militaries provide actually going to be? How many officers and instructors from countries that actually do have competent militaries can be lent to them? Or how about a decently led but tiny and underequipped continental European army with no ability to project force? How many countries rely on American military advisors? The UK, France, Russia, China, and India are going to be doing the heavy lifting here. And their navies aren't really a match for the USA's. And that's not even accounting for sorties of aircraft from the USA itself on approaching ships. The USA isn't going to occupy the whole world, but it's borders can be secured.
-any coalition forces that do manage to get past the navy and air force and land there aren't going to be resupplied anytime soon.So the American military is going to seize the combined land area of North and South America?
United States pumps money into SpaceX, takes over Mars, becomes Martian invaders 120 years later
"the entire world fights USA, including best allies and defenseless nations, for no explained reason, but I'm sure some Americans will rebel against their country"
Why? Nobody in this scenario has a motivation for their uncharacteristic (and for some, self-destructive*) actions, and without that it's impossible to predict how anyone will behave.
* or for all because of globalization - international trade etc.
And presumably if every nation is at war with the US, any military bases the US had on dependant nations would've likely been closed years prior to the war (Which in the case of israel, is improbable but we're discussing the war itself, not the cause.) in preparation for it to avoid equipment and manpower losses.This presumably is not a safe assumption. I, for one, have been operating from "World War three starts completely unexpectedly, as if at precisely 12 GMT, the entire world became possessed of the notion of killing America" because that assumption is no less realistic than "Mighty pacifist Costa Rica decides America needs to be taken down a peg". If the build-up takes years then it's an entirely different question. I assumed the former because we actually know to a limited extent what military forces the world and the US can bring to bear today, whereas what they could bring to bear in the future is more hypothetical and harder to answer.
Foreign nationals living in the US?Why would they act suicidally? I mean that makes even less sense then Canada invading, somehow. Maybe they don't want to strap a bomb to their chest and run into traffic or be executed by firing squad or abducted by the FBI in the middle of the night or whatever! But perhaps I am being too reasonable here.
I think the scenario is more interesting if not literally every non-American human being on earth is filled with inexplicable bloodlust, but each to their own I guess. Either way, though, I think defining the terms of the scenario is important. It's already such an unrealistic scenario that basic assumptions like "people would rather be alive than dead" are not safe unless actively defined as such.If the question is - can USA defend against any realistic threat to it? - then the answer is yes.
I don't think Trump intends to actually take over the world, though he certainly seems like the type to fantasize about that sort of thing.
If the US were actually going to take over the world, it would start by solidification of our island territory and generous buyout offers for other island nations. I totally believe we'd get takers if we tried something like that. You'd then want to move on to even further hyperpower solidification regarding our economics by getting in a Reverse Cold War and being BFFs with China. Then use the US Navy to aggressively wage trade wars against nations that don't accept increasing American transnational influence. The first major territorial gains would be from Mexico. Help destabilize the nation until federal authority collapses entirely, and invade to restore order. Never leave. Pull a Crimean-style referendum to annex increasing parts of the Mexican Occupation Zone until America consumes all the good parts. Also, use the Panama Canal to justify reacquiring the entire nation, stage a terrorist attack or something. We already provide Costa Rica's sovereign protection, use that to occupy.
At some point in all this, you want to start making moves against Canada. Not hostile moves, but as American power becomes overwhelming in the world our ability to sway the Canadian political system would increase rapidly. With the take over the world goal in mind and dedication, in the end they'll come willingly. Once all of North America is under American control, which would take the better part of a century but is far from impossible, we're truly unstoppable. I'll stop there, but that's the idea of how it'd happen. Salami the world into ever-increasing spheres of American control. In say, two to three centuries, it's all done. Sooner if some perfect negation of nuclear weapons can be placed solely in US hands.
If you ever think American foreign policy is a bastard, be glad we try to think of ourselves as liberators instead of conquering overlords...
If the entire world declared war on the US, the loss of income for McDonalds alone will bankrupt the US within days.Nonsense! The domestic sphere will simply grow to supply the new demand. Just repeal everything Michelle Obama has ever gotten her hands on and McDonalds will come roaring back to life with McSquareMeals.
Doesn't china currently have the highest manpower military in the world currently?
Also lol @ the commonwealth having any real power any more.
#McRationPackIf the entire world declared war on the US, the loss of income for McDonalds alone will bankrupt the US within days.Nonsense! The domestic sphere will simply grow to supply the new demand. Just repeal everything Michelle Obama has ever gotten her hands on and McDonalds will come roaring back to life with McSquareMeals.
Nah, the bit about Canada is inaccurate. Toeing against the Commonwealth should be absolutely the last thing that the US does to take over the world. Back the allies to the hilt, occupy Mexico and the Pacific, then forment crisis with Russia or China. Probably Russia, because that allows European support to be utilized to the maximum. It's not ideal, because China is the larger long term threat, but for the context of the hypothetical, China's long game doesn't mean much.Nothing about that really contradicts my version. As I said, it wouldn't be moving with hostility against Canada, it would be (further) drowning them in our influence. I'd say to combine it with spinning Quebec off, but they'll get pissed off enough to do it themselves and split Canada into two more easily digestible sides.
Doesn't china currently have the highest manpower military in the world currently?WrONG !!! American Pig-Dog! Manpower supremacy belongs to the almighty People's Revolution of solider workers artists and GREAT GENERAL KIM JONG-UN
If the entire world declared war on the US, the loss of income for McDonalds alone will bankrupt the US within days.On the other hand the US would declare all foreign debts null, which could probably bankrupt several countries.
N a h.Fair point, but I should have been more specific in my phrasing. Launching a trans-atlantic or trans-pacific invasion of the USA is extremely different from attacking the USA, without naval supremacy there is not going to be any reinforcement possible to Canadian or Mexican forces. Germans could attack Britain in WWII, but invasion was impossible until the Royal Navy & Royal Air Force was destroyed - with the US commanding the largest and most modern navies and air forces in the world, with the home advantage, the rest of the world would have to heavily militarize and the destruction of the nations' navies mentioned before would terminate much potential for any reinforcement of Canada or Mexico. The armed civilian populace and paramilitary police of the USA are a formidable enough obstacle before you factor in the US army, Canada and Mexico would not have good chances alone.
I mean, the logistics of attacking USA and getting away with it and whatnot aside, you don't neccessarily need aircraft carriers.
"Superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, a geometric effect on overall military strength. Well-trained, well-equipped troops can stand up to many more times their lesser brethren than linear arithmetic would seem to indicate." - Spartan Battle Manual, Sid Meier's Alpha CentauriI've found the Spartans NEED warfare, and ironically, a good series of defeats to keep themselves competitive. Without a strong enemy capable of destroying their troops, eventually they keep producing soldiers until the industrial upkeep terminates their production lines (at least until/if they discover clean reactors). If they're continually harassing and attacking their neighbours then their production lines are kept active whilst their enemies industries are hurt fighting the Spartans' superior forces. Early to mid game Spartans rolling around Planet with missile rovers is a horrifying force to behold, by late game the Spartans are either a rape machine that can only be stopped with the probe warfare of Miriam or Morgan, the worms of Deidre or the industrial Stalingrad of Yang's magical realm - or by the late game, the Spartans ares still stuck with missile rovers whilst Zhakarov is deploying orbital space marines and singularity planet destroyers.
Naturally, the Spartans were usually one of the first two factions to get wiped out in virtually all of my SMAC games.
Also lol @ the commonwealth having any real power any more.The Commonwealth is powerless; the nations of the Commonwealth are powerful. It would certainly be weird if the Commonwealth nations and the USA went to war, you'd get that weird situation where two sides that frequently train each other's soldiers and officers go to war
I dunno, UK does have a large navy and will soon have 2 proper carriers, and they have fair number of both SSBNs and attack subs, as well as fairly large and modern air force. Tranche 3 Typhoons are right now very likely 2nd best fighters in the world, after F-22. Canada and Australia, that also has a great navy, put together are about the same strength, just without nukes. All Commonwealth countries have relatively weak armies, though.British army has a great deal many elite forces; I just don't see many situations that would actually get the British army from the UK to the USA. Moreover the Caribbean and Bermuda would almost immediately be lost to the USA
Earth is round. Trans-arctic supply lines to Canada from Russia. There is less ice than years before, but I belive you could still have an continous line from Russian territory to Canadian territory, and while temperatures would certainly be a problem, it's possible and away from American naval forces.N a h.Fair point, but I should have been more specific in my phrasing. Launching a trans-atlantic or trans-pacific invasion of the USA is extremely different from attacking the USA, without naval supremacy there is not going to be any reinforcement possible to Canadian or Mexican forces.
I mean, the logistics of attacking USA and getting away with it and whatnot aside, you don't neccessarily need aircraft carriers.
Thinking on that, how would Canada and Mexico ensure the best chances of victory against the USA? I reckon defeating any US invasions and ensuring they're not knocked out of the war immediately would count as a high priority objective, though I'm not sure how they could go about it.Even by Armchair General general standards, I think it's impossible. In the period preceding WWII, the US, UK, and Canada all had plans developed for this exact scenario.
Earth is round. Trans-arctic supply lines to Canada from Russia. There is less ice than years before, but I belive you could still have an continous line from Russian territory to Canadian territory, and while temperatures would certainly be a problem, it's possible and away from American naval forces.There aren't any major ports in Northern Canada for landing supplies in. You'd probably have to build one. Transporting supplies overland across the tundra is also going to be a massive pain in the ass. Only 100,000 people live up there. There's almost no infrastructure.
Smirk @ the nazis going to war with ChinaAlso lol @ the commonwealth having any real power any more.The Commonwealth is powerless; the nations of the Commonwealth are powerful. It would certainly be weird if the Commonwealth nations and the USA went to war, you'd get that weird situation where two sides that frequently train each other's soldiers and officers go to war
If the entire population of the rest of the world decided to assault the United States using human wave tactics, would the US win?
Probably, but only because human wave tactics are obsolete.
Doesn't china currently have the highest manpower military in the world currently?
Also lol @ the commonwealth having any real power any more.
"drop nukes on him until he is encased in molten rock, not harming but permanently halting him".
I don't think Nazis ever actually went to war with China. They ceased support, true, but never did a German soldier fire a shot at Chinese one during WW2.They did have German advisors training and fighting with the Chinese
Cargo subs, planes, nuclear-powered icebreakers (they reached North Pole, they can reach Canada, also imagine a fucking convoy of cargo ships lead by an icebreaker), they could even supply some on land using those crazy Arctic truck trains.That would make sense, but still doesn't quite cover the air superiority of the USA
Also, yeah, you could just go through majority of the journey by Arctic and then under cover of Commonwealth fleet go by Atlantic to major port. Also, it wouldn't be that unthinkable for Canadians to just plop an major military sea port in Hudson Bay (they have some infrastructure in Churchill already, I belive).
As for Russians, either go from Sankt Petersburg through the North Sea (and still be relatviely safe due to proximity of UK and their fleets) or through Murmansk which has a considerably sized port, I belive.
They did have German advisors training and fighting with the ChineseSTOP IMPLYING MY HISTORY-FU IS WEAK.
Most of the Chinese soldiers were relatively useless and more concerned with killing Chinese soldiers than fighting the Japanese, but with the exception of a few prominent warlords who relentlessly drilled their soldiers, the German-led armies were pretty ard as nails (https://warisboring.com/that-one-time-the-nazis-helped-china-fight-japan-42ce2fa6c6d#.soejpvouu)
That would make sense, but still doesn't quite cover the air superiority of the USAIt is, which is why I said it would proably devolve into some kind of modern attrition war (provided noone uses nukes, in which case it's a moot point anyway) where it would boil down to noone getting significant advantage, albeit with constant attacks on rear (special forces, terrorists, Tomahawks and shit) which would finally end up in complete isolation of America, Big Brother-esque internal security. Ultimately, it would result in USA loss, since the rest of world simply has more land, which means more resources and also more people.
Russia might have enough air dakka but cracking fortress USA is ard
I don't think Nazis ever actually went to war with China. They ceased support, true, but never did a German soldier fire a shot at Chinese one during WW2.They did have German advisors training and fighting with the Chinese.
Ultimately, it would result in USA loss, since the rest of world simply has more land, which means more resources and also more people.If it's "everyone against the USA" sure.
STOP IMPLYING MY HISTORY-FU IS WEAK.>
I know that Nazis helped China, the point was that even after Germany allied with Japan and ceased all support to China, they never, ever, actually took hostile action. Sure, yeah, China as part of Allies declared war on the Axis, but there was no fighting between Germany and China specifically.Russia was in the way
It is, which is why I said it would proably devolve into some kind of modern attrition war (provided noone uses nukes, in which case it's a moot point anyway) where it would boil down to noone getting significant advantage, albeit with constant attacks on rear (special forces, terrorists, Tomahawks and shit) which would finally end up in complete isolation of America, Big Brother-esque internal security. Ultimately, it would result in USA loss, since the rest of world simply has more land, which means more resources and also more people.An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USN
Also, a lot depends on how far we're willing to go. Nukes are out in any scenario that implies actual combat, but what about biological and chemical weapons? Russia invested (and supposedly invests) a lot into that and it would significantly impact the war - sure, the troops have NBC gear (but gas mask filters will wear out eventually) but majority of civilian population does not have any real way to protect themselves.I suppose unleashing bioweapons in the populated areas of the USA would get the job done but it's potentially MAD
An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USNIt wouldn't necessarily be a 'conventional' attrition war, but a lack of material imports would certainly mean that attrition from general use for the US would likely be crippling due to a lack of spare parts.
Russia was in the wayYes, and? I mean, this one isin't about what would have been but what was, and what was, was that there was no fighting between Germany and China during WW2, so the claim that it was a fight between army which was trained by the people who now fought against them was wrong.
An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USNNot that kind, the WWI one, not trenches. I meant it as a war where noone can really make any real gains - even considering that US conquers South America (that's a given, lack of safe supply routes) and Canada (less so, Canadians could easily guerilla the fuck out of Americans and then wait until the Russians and the rest gets there by Arctic), they would be ultimately locked on their own continent and finally outproduced and outfucked by Chinese, Russians and the rest of world.
CanadaCold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through Arctic.
Warm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).
South America combined is not "a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees," and I'd love to see your citation for that. The Canadian army, numerically, including reservists, ranks somewhere around not South America as a whole, but maybe just Argentina alone, and numbers are going to have a powerful weight in this kind of conflict. Against the preponderance of force the US can apply in the early years of this hypothetical conflict, especially to its northern neighbor, any "stand-and-fight" mentality is going to result in that army of less than 50k soldiers and reservists melting away in the wind. Quality-wise, they're far superior than any South American army, but those millions of South American soldiers and guerillas aren't just armed with sticks, and a bullet from an M964 FAL, M4 (which happens to be intended for US standard issue as well), or even an AK-47 will kill someone just as dead as a bullet from a Canadian C7. The only way either Canada or all of the countries of South America are going to stay in the fight is through guerilla warfare, so don't denigrate it, and don't pretend one side's guerilla forces don't count while another side's do just because the latter's a First World country and the former aren't. The US is certainly not going to have an easier time conquering an entire continent half a world away compared to a single country right next door.CanadaCold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through Arctic.Quote from: Culise link=topic=141793.msg7305608#msg7305608 South America
[/quoteWarm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).
South America combined is not "a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees," and I'd love to see your citation for that.Yeah, they're bunch of dudes with M3 Stuarts, with Cessnas for air force and river boats for navy. Sure, they can guerilla all they want in the forest, but without capabilities to hold out the US Army face to face for at least a while it's all matter of conquering the cities and letting the dudes with AK spears run around the forest until they die of old age. The only relatively modern army down here is... Brazil? I think? They have relatively modern tanks, like, Pattons and first generation Leopards, I am kinda sure.
The Canadian army, numerically, including reservists, ranks somewhere around not South America as a whole, but maybe just Argentina alone, and numbers are going to have a powerful weight in this kind of conflict. Against the preponderance of force the US can apply in the early years of this hypothetical conflict, especially to its northern neighbor, any "stand-and-fight" mentality is going to result in that army of less than 50k soldiers and reservists melting away in the wind. Quality-wise, they're far superior than any South American army, but those millions of South American soldiers and guerillas aren't just armed with sticks, and a bullet from an M964 FAL, M4 (which happens to be intended for US standard issue as well), or even an AK-47 will kill someone just as dead as a bullet from a Canadian C7. The only way either Canada or all of the countries of South America are going to stay in the fight is through guerilla warfare, so don't denigrate it, and don't pretend one side's guerilla forces don't count while another side's do just because the latter's a First World country and the former aren't. The US is certainly not going to have an easier time conquering an entire continent half a world away compared to a single country right next door.Yeah, but supply. South America would be pretty much stranded, Canada not.
Also, how is supply getting over the Arctic in the amount required? Last I checked, it's kinda covered in ice. Cargo submarines were mentioned before by you, but these have never been a major part of any nation's naval arsenal due to their inefficiency. Icebreakers, you mention, but these are basically target practice; break the lead ships and the entire fleet is stranded to be picked off at leisure. By this general burst of logic, I could go "lol icebreakers" (by analogy to your "hue narco-subs") and say that supply can reach South America by circling Antarctica. And lo, suddenly South America is magically as well-supplied as Canada. Besides, in seriousness, there is much more coastline to cover for South America as a whole than there is for Canada, so that's not even such awful logic as one might think.If you circle Antarctica you still have to get to South America and that's pretty huge distance you would have to cover while having USN on your ass. Canada has a natural cover in Hudson Bay. Also Brits with Battleships, bing bong. In general I'm just pulling shit out of my ass, and utilizing /k/ logic that whoever has better propaganda has better army. Canadians are cool and thus are much better. South Americans are slightly lighter-skinned African warlords.
The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.
Submarines can operate without significant degradation in polar regions, unlike the traditional surface and aerial countermeasures.The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.
Submarines can operate without significant degradation in polar regions, unlike the traditional surface and aerial countermeasures.The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.
CanadaCold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through Arctic.Quote from: Culise link=topic=141793.msg7305608#msg7305608 South America
[/quoteWarm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).
You forget that we have Alaska, and winter in the northern parts of the continential US provides plenty of opportunity for training in cold conditions.
No, but you can go under the ice, and if you need to surface, you can just go up through the ice
The thing is that Canada's going to quickly be reduced to "guerilla[ing] in the forest" as well; there's no way they can stand and fight against a superior force numerically that also has has technological parity, and if they make the attempt, they'll be eradicated long before any aid can ever arrive, either over the Arctic Circle or elsewhere. If you look at old anti-US Canadian war plans, this is actually something they recognized. Even their most aggressive plans (the infamous "Defense Plan 1") consisted of spoiling attacks intended only to divert the Americans until aid arrived from the Commonwealth, and this was back before World War 2 when the US military was nowhere near the modern day colossus it is today. As such, it seems weird to claim that South America's guerilla warfare is somehow a testament to its backwards and incapable nature while Canada's guerilla warfare is a testament to its forward thinking, endurance, and logistical miracles.South America combined is not "a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees," and I'd love to see your citation for that.Yeah, they're bunch of dudes with M3 Stuarts, with Cessnas for air force and river boats for navy. Sure, they can guerilla all they want in the forest, but without capabilities to hold out the US Army face to face for at least a while it's all matter of conquering the cities and letting the dudes with AK spears run around the forest until they die of old age. The only relatively modern army down here is... Brazil? I think? They have relatively modern tanks, like, Pattons and first generation Leopards, I am kinda sure.
I'm pretty sure the US navy still needs to refuel which does limit ship range. (Sure, the carriers are nuclear powered, but their escorts and support ships aren't.)It does, but its myriad global commitments means that it has made a fine art of UNREP. Ever since World War 2 and the operational needs of the US Navy that pushed them across the Pacific, they've been able to operate more or less indefinitely at sea by operating a dedicated underway replenishment force (the Military Sealift Command generally and the Combat Logistics Force specifically), just as the Air Force has made extensive use of aerial refueling for every historical major conflict since Vietnam. That does become a possible point-failure source once the rest of the world gets their own navies within a fighting shot of the US, but until then, it will remain a major part of US operational freedom worldwide.
And if the RAF got shut down, they could do an amphibious assault on Britain. How successful that would have been? Who knows. But if Britain falls...I can tell you right now that there is basically no situation in which Germany is able to pull off Sealion. Straight up. It was a terrible plan. Control of the skies is only one of several requirements to pull off a massive amphibious invasion. The US and the Royal Navy, working in Tandem, managed to pull it off; but they were two of the three largest navies in the entire world, and they operated essentially unopposed. There is no situation in which the Royal Navy would not oppose an amphibious invasion of the mainland, even if loss of air superiority meant it cost them massively. The Royal Navy in your situation is banished from south Britain, but the British had planned for this historically; they would have been rebased at Scarpa flow, outside the range of german bombers but well within range to oppose an amphibious invasion.
Actually, that's not true. I remember reading in Wages of Destruction that the allies DID manage to stop the constant increase in war material production.
Still worse, the Axis powers in general had one major deficiency in terms of their pilot training programs that the Allies generally lacked. In the UK and USA in particular (I'm not so familiar with the USSR, but I believe they had this as well), particularly-capable aces were regularly cycled out of the flying rotation and stationed ground-side to rest, recuperate, and most importantly, train new pilots. In Germany and Japan, aces were kept flying until they get shot down. This was probable one of the two major contributors to the unusually high kill tallies for Axis aces (along with separate methods for counting casualties), but it also means that their knowledge and experience is never used to create a new cadre of pilots. Every fresh pilot put out by the British has much more training than their German counterparts. Of course, the lack of rest and recuperation had other consequences; German pilots quickly began to develop a particular case of combat fatigue after multiple sorties, made worse by how many of their compatriots were lost.
Actually, that's not true. I remember reading in Wages of Destruction that the allies DID manage to stop the constant increase in war material production.
Well, Germany's GDP was at its largest when the Reich was at its largest. But the factories in Germany kept going until very late in 1944 when they started getting conquered and running out of raw materials. Bombardments did shut down production for days or even weeks at a time, but Germany also kept building more factories. Tank and vehicle production too peaked somewhere in 1944, but aircraft production peaked I believe in late September 1944, long after aircraft factories in France and most in Italy and Netherlands were already unavailable and Allies were able to attain air superiority anywhere they wanted to. They built more planes than they could fuel or man.
What is true is Germany was late in turning its civilian economy into war economy, so part of the war material manufacturing expansion in 1944 is they were still working on that.
Thank you for the corrections and elaboration on the USSR. That's an interesting system, and it seems quite good for making sure that rookie pilots can get actual flying experience in combat situations. I do recall that one of the major crimping points for the Germans and Japanese was that inability to put rookies in the air due to the growing fuel scarcity situation later in the war as well, after all.Still worse, the Axis powers in general had one major deficiency in terms of their pilot training programs that the Allies generally lacked. In the UK and USA in particular (I'm not so familiar with the USSR, but I believe they had this as well), particularly-capable aces were regularly cycled out of the flying rotation and stationed ground-side to rest, recuperate, and most importantly, train new pilots. In Germany and Japan, aces were kept flying until they get shot down. This was probable one of the two major contributors to the unusually high kill tallies for Axis aces (along with separate methods for counting casualties), but it also means that their knowledge and experience is never used to create a new cadre of pilots. Every fresh pilot put out by the British has much more training than their German counterparts. Of course, the lack of rest and recuperation had other consequences; German pilots quickly began to develop a particular case of combat fatigue after multiple sorties, made worse by how many of their compatriots were lost.
This is partially inaccurate - Axis powers, even Japan, did rotate pilots back for training duties. For example Norbert Hannig(42 victories) was rotated back(29 March 1944) despite him being a very successfull pilot who could have scored dozens more kills had he served more at the front. Sakai was too, despite him being the most successfull ace at the time, although it was first because of his wounds.
What was problem for both Germany and Japan was they didnt initially plan to fight a long war; they did not prepare enough to replace pilots. Experience of frontline pilots wasnt used nearly enough, they werent rotated back enough, there werent enough resoures put into the training program in general and when they then found themselves thousands of pilots short, they had to cut the flight hours and shorten the programs, which then produced ever worse pilots. Quality of Luftwaffe's replacement pilots started falling rapidly after approximately mid 1943, Japan's even earlier. Majority of the responsibility I think goes to Der Dicke, Marshall Hermann Göring himself. He proved his worth in Battle of Britain too.
USSR used a system of their own, IIRC. In many frontline regiments they had one or two experienced squadrons and then a "training squadron" with 2nd line planes but led by experienced pilots, that would fly slightly easier missions than others. They would rotate pilots from flight schools to training squadrons and from training squadrons to ones that flew the all missions. 12. and 13. GvIAPs at least for sure had this structure: La-5 and Yak-9 for best squadrons, while training squads with old LaGG and Yak-1 would protect their bases and fly safe escort missions and train when they had the time.
My short list of consequences for the Chinese Axis:The problem with a Chinese intervention in Barbarossa is threefold:
-War between Japan and the USA is still possible due to preexisting conflict, but also not certain. I don't recall any evidence that the Japanese military was bolder because of Axis membership, so I think it's more likely than not that Pearl Harbor still happens.
-China does not significantly help the Axis. I believe that in almost all scenarios the Kuomintang would pull a Ho Chi Minh and eagerly thank them for their support, then do nothing to help them with it. The best thing they could do is strike at the USSR in the largest flank of all time, but Mao would probably break the united front if that happened.
Most interesting butterflies:
If Japan decides to keep the war with America soft, it's entirely possible that the US never enters WWII, or more likely pulls a WWI reenactment and arrives to crush the Western front once it's already broken in order to stave off the USSR. The USSR almost certainly takes more of Europe in both scenarios, maybe even going all the way to the Atlantic if American neutrality endures. However, the USSR's new empire might buckle and collapse pretty quickly, given that they'll be losing even more of their population to the extended conflict.
If the Kuomintang strike at the USSR and Mao decides not to care and the US stays out of the war, Soviet defeat is possible. There's not much reason for China to be that committed, but for the sake of getting German support against Japan or whatever. Actually holding any part of the USSR would at that point probably require outright extermination, but I'm sure the Nazis would oblige that. This path has suddenly makes an Axis victory seem pretty possible. I think the UK might start looking for a way out if it all goes that far to shit. China probably falls to Japanese conquest and is placed under effectively colonial rule afterwards. The Axis, Japan, and America inherit the Earth.
Different question:Most immediate consequence would be are the Japanese willing or capable of attacking Dutch Indonesia, British Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya, and US Hawaii pearl harbour, and will the Chinese be able to launch an effective two-front war on the Soviets where the Japanese failed?
What would WWII have looked like if the Nazis had sided with the Chinese instead of the Japanese?
I am pretty sure we had this discussion before... during WW2 the "whole world vs US" would end in whole world victory even more so than now.
In this case the idea is that Russia wants to grab some of those border territories right away, rather than keep the Japanese away and go after them later.Ah, but the problem is that Japan holds some of those border territories right now as of the points of divergence: Manchuria, to wit. On the flip side, Japan is upset the Soviets hold Mongolia, the Soviet Far East, and if possible, the rest of Siberia as well (whatever they can lop off, really). If the USSR wants to grab the border territories right away, the most probable answer is not to ally openly with Japan, but rather to escalate the border conflicts of 1939 into a full-on invasion of the Far East by 1940. However, the debacle in Finland has already demonstrated to the USSR the need for a military "reform" (read: clean sweep) before any such redeployment eastward for an extended military campaign can be arranged. It's unlikely they'd launch such an attack before the Molotov Line is complete and the military thoroughly vetted.
If the USSR and Nazi Germany don't go to war, and they absolutely will not go to war, is that information telegraphed in some manner to France, Britain and the USA?No, other than them not really arming their common borders more heavily than expected from pure occupation purposes.
Yeah the ability of a guerilla force to wage effective war against the US military drops catastrophically if "Hearts and minds" and "noncombatants" are removed from play. If the entire civilian population are taking up arms, there is no background of "people the army cannot shoot at/bomb" to melt back into.
Yeah the ability of a guerilla force to wage effective war against the US military drops catastrophically if "Hearts and minds" and "noncombatants" are removed from play. If the entire civilian population are taking up arms, there is no background of "people the army cannot shoot at/bomb" to melt back into.
That results in the United States ceasing to be a modern, industrialized nation. The often imagined, poorly conceived, American uprising isn't one that gets won, but it's one that doesn't get won by anyone. Once the fires die down, there ain't a nation left, which isn't an unreasonable accomplishment when faced with tyranny or evil.
Yeah the ability of a guerilla force to wage effective war against the US military drops catastrophically if "Hearts and minds" and "noncombatants" are removed from play. If the entire civilian population are taking up arms, there is no background of "people the army cannot shoot at/bomb" to melt back into.
That results in the United States ceasing to be a modern, industrialized nation. The often imagined, poorly conceived, American uprising isn't one that gets won, but it's one that doesn't get won by anyone. Once the fires die down, there ain't a nation left, which isn't an unreasonable accomplishment when faced with tyranny or evil.
Yeah but this is a fantasy universe where every single citizen of the USA jumps up, pulls an AR-15 out of their backside, and declares a revolution simultaneously. The serious sociopolitical effects are clearly not being considered here
blink blinkYeah the ability of a guerilla force to wage effective war against the US military drops catastrophically if "Hearts and minds" and "noncombatants" are removed from play. If the entire civilian population are taking up arms, there is no background of "people the army cannot shoot at/bomb" to melt back into.
That results in the United States ceasing to be a modern, industrialized nation. The often imagined, poorly conceived, American uprising isn't one that gets won, but it's one that doesn't get won by anyone. Once the fires die down, there ain't a nation left, which isn't an unreasonable accomplishment when faced with tyranny or evil.
Yeah but this is a fantasy universe where every single citizen of the USA jumps up, pulls an AR-15 out of their backside, and declares a revolution simultaneously. The serious sociopolitical effects are clearly not being considered here
Yeah, it's basically a zombie plague type scenario, except all the zombies have AK-47s and somehow the military is immune.
blink blinkYeah the ability of a guerilla force to wage effective war against the US military drops catastrophically if "Hearts and minds" and "noncombatants" are removed from play. If the entire civilian population are taking up arms, there is no background of "people the army cannot shoot at/bomb" to melt back into.
That results in the United States ceasing to be a modern, industrialized nation. The often imagined, poorly conceived, American uprising isn't one that gets won, but it's one that doesn't get won by anyone. Once the fires die down, there ain't a nation left, which isn't an unreasonable accomplishment when faced with tyranny or evil.
Yeah but this is a fantasy universe where every single citizen of the USA jumps up, pulls an AR-15 out of their backside, and declares a revolution simultaneously. The serious sociopolitical effects are clearly not being considered here
Yeah, it's basically a zombie plague type scenario, except all the zombies have AK-47s and somehow the military is immune.
*starts writing furiously*
US aircraft and weapons are designed and built by civilian contractors.
Drones, aircraft, bombs, missile defense, chemicals. The only thing stopping them from being assembled and distributed is the law.
The hypothetical scenario, as I understand it, is military versus civilians. Contractors are private sector, civilians, not under military oath. They'll be wanting civilian-produced goods.US aircraft and weapons are designed and built by civilian contractors.
Drones, aircraft, bombs, missile defense, chemicals. The only thing stopping them from being assembled and distributed is the law.
Yep, because the military industrial complex is somehow less or more American than the American military or the American populace.
If the army was there, fighting literally the rest of the US, would they engage in bloody street-to-street firefights? Nope. The easiest thing to do would just be level the damn place. The ENTIRE populace is hostile, so long as you don't send anyone in, everything there is a target. So you can just drop an MOAB in the middle of San Francisco without even the slightest fuck given. Sure, after the war you have to repair it all, but both sides in this hypothetical scenario are basically pulling a "No surrender!" thing.America is a big place, and you can't MOAB every goddamn town in the whole US. The size is too much, the amount of people is too much. Only thing I could see is use of biological weaponry, and not even that really, there is too much empty space to hide in, and gas masks and other NBC equipment can be purchased without permit, and is a part of regular >surviving nuclear war prepper pack.
And what is there to stop something like that happening? Fuck. All. How many AA guns and SAM missiles are in civilian use? How many F-22s?After they raid their closest supply depot, guarded by weekend soldiers, they gain access to heavy equipment.
Not only would the whole US populace be fighting a well armed foe, they'd be fighting a well armed foe with total air superiority.Air bases can be captured too, and planes can be destroyed on ground. Sure, army got tanks, but simplest molotovs are deadly to superfluous turbine engine of Abrams, people would get their hands on IEDs, soon there would be self-made weaponry, which, with the technological and resource base, would be much more effective than the already very effective scrap weapons of middle east guerillas, and as I said, people would soon get into depots to get the weapons in store there.
Not necessarily. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-missile-base-security-failed-takeover-drill-ap-reports/)
Also, important to note that this drill was a simulation of a terrorist group raiding a silo to steal a warhead in peacetime. Not a security team resisting a much larger force without reinforcements.
Not necessarily. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-missile-base-security-failed-takeover-drill-ap-reports/)
Also, important to note that this drill was a simulation of a terrorist group raiding a silo to steal a warhead in peacetime. Not a security team resisting a much larger force without reinforcements.
Only tangentially related and on-topic, but too good not to mention again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/pacifists-who-broke-into-nuclear-weapon-facility-due-in-court.html?_r=1&ref=atomicweapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/pacifists-who-broke-into-nuclear-weapon-facility-due-in-court.html?_r=1&ref=atomicweapons)
Looking at Russian steam trains (http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/russia21.htm) and her nuclear train platforms (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25423/all-aboard-russias-apocalypse-train/) got me thinking at how a post-WWIII map of "great powers" would look like. Aussie world power? Russian steam train lines of communication in a dead world? Chinese underground cities? Swissroaches emerging from their mountain hobbit-holes to dominate the world? Icelandic sagas 2: Nuclear viking boogaloo? How many nuclear weapons would be held in reserve, how much of previous government would survive their nation's explosion to rebuild or relaunch a post-hot war nuclear negotiations/2nd strike? If destruction occurred with today's reduced nuclear arsenals, would the surviving warlords seek to finish the job and complete nuclear destruction of their foes? Would mankind be able to repair global communications?Read books from Metro universe. Post-Apo papacy, Venezuelan Nazis, a lot of Russians, etc...
Read books from Metro universe. Post-Apo papacy, Venezuelan Nazis, a lot of Russians, etc...There's always the vidya
OH WAIT YOU CAN'T THEY DON'T GET TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH OH WELL.
Honestly I think it depends on who exactly gets nuked and where.I run under the basis that vital military targets and economic centres would be the highest priority ones, so it would be safe to assume much of the Northern hemisphere's capitals are just ~gone~. Also assuming that the war happens under current US-Russian nuclear doctrine, with both sides preferring tactical nuclear weapons, keeping up to a third in reserve, so in countries with large strategic depth significantly large rural populations surviving is probable.
Seriously? You used ~100 Mt as realistic yield for nuclear strike?UK is a good example for thought; most of the surviving populations would come from celtic highland areas or english fishing towns, with much of the UK's maritime forces being able to escape the initial superdeath. It would be amusing for example if Cornwall or the Isle of Man was to make a surprise comeback in colonizing the empty quarters of England. Would Swindon remain SwindonSpoiler (click to show/hide)
There's always the vidyaVidyas are restricted to Moscow, and soon maybe a bit more of Russia.
Though the interactions I'm talking about would be how do the vast post-war nations deal with one another and such. For example in the USA, the likelihood of the pre-war government surviving is pretty high, USA's got a lot of bunkers. However the likelihood of the USA being able to reclaim North America would be another question entirely. Reminds me of a US war exercise where they were practicing how the USA would deal with a large armed rebellion. In the contest between US and rebellion, neither won, who won instead were the warlords that arose in the crossfire. Could the remnant gov then take on the warlords? What would the lines of communication in a post-war USA look like, would its railways survive or be repairable in time to face a second strike?
Seriously? You used ~100 Mt as realistic yield for nuclear strike?
It's more likely that England will be renamed to the Scottish Lowlands
UK is a good example for thought; most of the surviving populations would come from celtic highland areas or english fishing towns, with much of the UK's maritime forces being able to escape the initial superdeath. It would be amusing for example if Cornwall or the Isle of Man was to make a surprise comeback in colonizing the empty quarters of England. Would Swindon remain Swindon
Apologies, I was talking to LW. He's a jolly thick-skinned argumentative bastard, so I'm certain he won't get offended.Seriously? You used ~100 Mt as realistic yield for nuclear strike?
This kind of post is fairly unconstructive. It doesn't convey whether that's too low or too high, or give any idea of what you think a more reasonable number would be. In fact, the only information it conveys is that you disagree with LW, and that you consider it appropriate to belittle him (although you have not, in fact, provided any explanation as to why you are more correct than he is). It's neither polite nor helpful enough to cover over the rudeness.
Actually it's quite clear that 100 Mt is too much*, and it's also highly improbable that LW doesn't know that, so it's a perfectly reasonable calling-out of laziness or knowing exaggeration on LW's part.Seriously? You used ~100 Mt as realistic yield for nuclear strike?
This kind of post is fairly unconstructive. It doesn't convey whether that's too low or too high, or give any idea of what you think a more reasonable number would be. In fact, the only information it conveys is that you disagree with LW, and that you consider it appropriate to belittle him (although you have not, in fact, provided any explanation as to why you are more correct than he is). It's neither polite nor helpful enough to cover over the rudeness.
Seriously? You used ~100 Mt as realistic yield for nuclear strike?I didn't make the chart fam, it was made by real estate agents I found on google. I do not yet have the time to drop tactical nukes on London ;D
Sauce is for scrubssauce pls
t. GandhiSauce is for scrubssauce pls
Humans are actually capable of crowd coordination without training - the part of our brain dedicated to walking and pathmaking is highly developed. I suspect the first-worlders win if combatants are bloodlusted, otherwise nearly everyone routs as soon as the first mortal wound is struck by one of the 2-4% without hard aversion to killing, leaving the winner essentially up to chance.
Hmm. Eh, it's only like a year old~Depends what peasants, from what country and what time period. English freeholders, malnourished Polish serfs, Alpenine Germans, French farmers, Corsican villagers, Russian frontier peasants e.t.c. all have varying degrees of nutrition and combat experience depending on where they lived and when they lived. In almost all cases I will always give the advantage to the peasant.
Egan gestures and the thread begins to move!
50 medieval European peasants vs 50 first-world-country citizens from 2018. Both sides are armed with cheap steel spears and have no real combat experience. Who wins and why?
Do the modern folks beat out the medieval ones with the strength of being bigger and less malnourished? Or will they be at a disadvantage due to being coddled and poorly-exercised? Maybe the currentyear-ians can vaguely recall some battle strategies from high school history?
Hmm. Eh, it's only like a year old~Depends what peasants, from what country and what time period. English freeholders, malnourished Polish serfs, Alpenine Germans, French farmers, Corsican villagers, Russian frontier peasants e.t.c. all have varying degrees of nutrition and combat experience depending on where they lived and when they lived. In almost all cases I will always give the advantage to the peasant.
Egan gestures and the thread begins to move!
50 medieval European peasants vs 50 first-world-country citizens from 2018. Both sides are armed with cheap steel spears and have no real combat experience. Who wins and why?
Do the modern folks beat out the medieval ones with the strength of being bigger and less malnourished? Or will they be at a disadvantage due to being coddled and poorly-exercised? Maybe the currentyear-ians can vaguely recall some battle strategies from high school history?
The peasant is always working physical labour, while the peasants who weren't typically physical labourers were usually violent people when violence was required (English millers and bakers being frontline soldiers in the peasant's revolt for example). They were conscripted to fight at a moment's notice, with the particular mental and physical preparations needed to kill enemies which does not exist in civil society today. It reminds me of a British army officer being asked how he thought the British army today would fare against the French or British army of the Napoleonic wars, during a re-enactment of the Napoleonic wars, assuming they had equal equipment standards. The army officer said that today's soldiers were better shots and bigger men, but the men of yesteryear were much more resilient, especially where killing by the bayonet was the standard. Couple that with peasants having a better diet than today (food security and lack of variety is not the same as food quality, of which there has been a serious decline in our diet today - medieval peasants in northern and western Europe from cultures with high meat consumption have always been producing large men), the supposed advantage of superior size fades away too when you're speaking about average peoples.
Assuming you don't luck out and pick 50 heavy protein Chad lads who are all about non-stop bulking and lifting, chances are you'll end up with a modern person from urban and urbane society, used to a sedentary office lifestyle. They'll have been actively taught that self-sufficiency is actually a dangerous thing to pursue and will lack the most basic of survival skills or instincts, right down to fighting in groups or knowing how to cook. They'll likely be malnourished either by being doused in corn syrup, soy and all the wonderful chemical additives & chemicals of modern agriculture and food processing, and unlike the peasants, the modern sample will include those who are severely underweight, underweight, vegan, overweight, obese and hyper-obese. The likelihood of the modern sample being hurt by the greater proportion of elderly compared to the peasants will also work against the modern sample. Knowing military strategy will be entirely worthless without the means to execute it, at which point it becomes a question of from which country are you selecting the modern sample. In this case, I believe the country best capable of defeating their medieval counterparts would be the Americans, as their ordinary population has a high percentage of war veterans who would serve as an immediate and effective nucleus for leadership. The only other downside would be convincing the 50 modern folk into killing the other 50, as there has been a general decline in civilian bloodlust, so unless the modern 50 are sampled from a football club it's not looking good.
I disagree with the idea of the peasants as more ok with violence. There was more violence around them, but if you look at classical culture you see a lot of lamenting and wretching over it. All those Quaker pacifists came from somewhere, after all.And they were run out of Britain by less lamenting and wretching peasants who were more keen self-defence, burning witches and raise angry mobs to kill other communities. Classical aint medieval, and literate nobility lamenting war =/= peasants who were more than willing to murder surrendered enemies
Modern first-worlders are often unrealistic about violence because of a lack of experience - but that means that in this instance, all those small business tyrants who spend their free time on Facebook demanding drug users get the death penalty are going to dive right in and spear some fucking peasants. The PTSD comes later.How many coked up business tyrants are you going to get in your sample of 50? Unless we get to choose who is in the 50, at which point we're drafting a dream team of 50 regular people. The most coked up business tyrants, the most impulsive gangsters, the sort of sports hooligans for whom violence is a matter of first resort
Well that goes without saying. If the Byzantines had 50 sportsball hooligans armed with steel spears then Constantinople would have never fell. Alas. It was not to be.The Varangian Club
I think we're assuming none of them are wearing armor other than basic clothing worn at the time. The peasants might be wearing more durable leather based clothing rather than cloth of modern era since they'd generally be wearing more work-durable clothing, but it won't help against stabbing type weapons, maybe a little with slashing.I assumed they had equal clothing standards
I think we're assuming none of them are wearing armor other than basic clothing worn at the time. The peasants might be wearing more durable leather based clothing rather than cloth of modern era since they'd generally be wearing more work-durable clothing, but it won't help against stabbing type weapons, maybe a little with slashing.I assumed they had equal clothing standards
For all practical purposes, yeah, we're probably assuming equal armor statuses. Once you get different armors into the mix, the outcome changes dramatically depending on who has what. And I was responding to madman who mentioned padded cloth armor.It'd be bloody hilarious if that sample of 50 included modern survivalists walking around always armoured and camouflaged
The Varangian ClubTrue, it's rather a horse apiece. Soccer hooligans may have started a war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War), but the Blues and Greens burned half of Constantinople and almost brought down an emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots).
Although they did have chariot hooligans
Incidentally, the best way to think about armies in the early modern period (in Europe) is to imagine what you would get if militaries today were privatized by psychotic neoliberals; they weren't "professionals" and they weren't "levies", they were for the most part privately contracted regiments owned by a captain or aristocrat who paid for all expenses themselves with the expectation of regular payment from the government, with varying intentions of profit (you can imagine the sorts of things this led to).Nervous laughter
Incidentally, the best way to think about armies in the early modern period (in Europe) is to imagine what you would get if militaries today were privatized by psychotic neoliberals; they weren't "professionals" and they weren't "levies", they were for the most part privately contracted regiments owned by a captain or aristocrat who paid for all expenses themselves with the expectation of regular payment from the government, with varying intentions of profit (you can imagine the sorts of things this led to).Nervous laughter
Isn't that just the modern euphenism for mercenary?Mercenary captains but more or less yes