Jump to content

Military history/history


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Hans de Vries said:

It still could not make up for numerical inferiority. Britain had 28 battleships at Jutland vs 16 German ones. 

So how were they able to inflict greater damage than your supposedly superior British fleet ?

Since this thread is about Military History and (I suppose) it's place in History more generally it is fascinating to study how often inferior naval forces have won history changing naval engagements as opposed to land engagements, going right back thousands of years to the Perisan Empire and the Ancient Greeks, through the Romans, to Spanish wars, the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic wars and as noted , some sundry far eastern wars as well.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British had built an empire on the back of her navy.
The experience intactics and use of equipment was vastly superior to the fledgling German navy.
Hence the susequent German navy refusals to fight after the Jutland defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The British had built an empire on the back of her navy.
The experience intactics and use of equipment was vastly superior to the fledgling German navy.
Hence the susequent German navy refusals to fight after the Jutland defeat.

So experienced that

Quote

Wiki  - History of Royal Navy 1815 - 1914

After 1827 there were no major battles until 1914

They must have had the oldest admiral ever !

🙂

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military tactics are taught, and experience gained, is passed on.
No need to keep Admirals alive, and serving, for 99 years 🙂 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Military tactics are taught, and experience gained, is passed on.
No need to keep Admirals alive, and serving, for 99 years 🙂 .

 

Good job they didn't pass it down the line then.

Naval tactics from 1815 consisted of 'line of battle' wooden sail-warships sailing past each other firing broadsides.

Successful tactics 100 years later with gun turrets on motorised steel ships were rather different.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly is a good job that tactics are passed down the line.
Tactics like those used by the Athenians against the much greater Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis.
That was 2501 years ago !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

Yes the German ships were (likely) slightly more accurate and had stronger systems to pump water out. This still did not make for the numerial inferiority

Earlier in the battle of Dogger Bank, due to the hit of an English shell, the powder charges ignited in one of the towers of the main caliber of the cruiser Seidlitz, the explosion did not occur. The Germans took this into account and modernized the projectile supply system from the point of view of fire safety. On the British battlecruisers, this was not done and as a result, in the Battle of Jutland, there was an explosion of cellars on Indefatible, Queen Mary and Invisible

 

The Battle of Jutland can be considered a victory for the German fleet, as it suffered fewer losses than the British fleet. But the British fleet was ready to go to sea the next day to perform combat missions and the German fleet had most of the ships forced to stand up for repairs for six months.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Successful tactics 100 years later with gun turrets on motorised steel ships were rather different.

The tactic is to allow more of their ships to fire on a portion of the enemy's ships while most of the enemy's ships would not be able to fire effectively. Here, a characteristic maneuver is the coverage of the head of the column of the enemy fleet by high-speed cruisers. This is a favorite maneuver of the Japanese navy, they tried to use it during the battle in the Yellow Sea and during the Battle of Tsushima.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

Earlier in the battle of Dogger Bank, due to the hit of an English shell, the powder charges ignited in one of the towers of the main caliber of the cruiser Seidlitz, the explosion did not occur. The Germans took this into account and modernized the projectile supply system from the point of view of fire safety. On the British battlecruisers, this was not done and as a result, in the Battle of Jutland, there was an explosion of cellars on Indefatible, Queen Mary and Invisible

 

The Battle of Jutland can be considered a victory for the German fleet, as it suffered fewer losses than the British fleet. But the British fleet was ready to go to sea the next day to perform combat missions and the German fleet had most of the ships forced to stand up for repairs for six months.

The tactic is to allow more of their ships to fire on a portion of the enemy's ships while most of the enemy's ships would not be able to fire effectively. Here, a characteristic maneuver is the coverage of the head of the column of the enemy fleet by high-speed cruisers. This is a favorite maneuver of the Japanese navy, they tried to use it during the battle in the Yellow Sea and during the Battle of Tsushima.

Thank you for the greater detail. +1

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

It certainly is a good job that tactics are passed down the line.
Tactics like those used by the Athenians against the much greater Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis.
That was 2501 years ago !

As I understand the battle of Salamis, it was the same tactics of 'bottleneck' used by the Spartans at Thermopylae and by Hector at the bridge.

Whereas Jutland was an open water manouvering by both sides.

Quote

Wiki

The Persians preferred a battle in the open sea, where they could better utilize their superior seamanship and numbers.[42] For the Greeks, the only realistic hope of a decisive victory was to draw the Persians into a constricted area, where their numbers would count for little.[33] The battle at Artemisium had seen attempts to negate the Persian advantage in numbers, but ultimately the Allies may have realised that they needed an even more constricted channel in order to defeat the Persians.[93] Therefore, by rowing into the Straits of Salamis to attack the Greeks, the Persians were playing into the Allies' hands. It seems probable that the Persians would not have attempted this unless they had been confident of the collapse of the Allied navy, and thus Themistocles's subterfuge appears to have played a key role in tipping the balance in the favor of the Greeks.[42] Salamis was, for the Persians, an unnecessary battle and a strategic mistake.[85]

Jutland1.thumb.jpg.113ae7079461903e263340a39330d6c7.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said tactics are passed down, Studiot, not that the same tactics were used at Salamis and Jutland.

The tactic at Jutland seemed to be for the Brits to absorb as much damage as they could, and outlast the Germans, who it turns out, didn't have the stomach for an apparent 'victory'.

Salamis was restricting the movement of the enemy's greater forces, as was Thermopylae and so was Horatius using the narrow end of the bridge.

Both tactics are still used to this day; the jutland tactic seems to be popular in boxing matches 😄 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

I said tactics are passed down, Studiot, not that the same tactics were used at Salamis and Jutland.

Fair enough.

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

Horatius

Thanks for the correction to my Hector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Elon Musk may have a rat problem.

Fans of the South African billionaire’s electric cars say rats, mice and rodents are chomping down on their Teslas. And despite having dropped tens of thousands of dollars to buy the pricey vehicles, Tesla refuses to cover the damage.

Sarah Williams, a 41-year-old physician who lives in Manhattan and uses her Tesla to commute to work in the Bronx, told The Post of an alarming incident when she took her 2018 Model 3 into Tesla’s Paramus, NJ, dealership in mid-May after her air conditioner had stopped working.

“They opened the glove compartment and a rodent fell out,” she said. “It’s crazy.” 

The pest apparently found its way into Williams’ Tesla and gobbled through several internal wires that were insulated with soy rather than oil, which critics claim makes them more appealing to rodents.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/11/rodents-chow-down-on-teslas-causing-thousands-in-damage/

Elon Musk and his engineers did not know the history of the 22nd Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht

On November 19, 1942, Operation Uranus began. The great Soviet counter-offensive encircled the German 6th Army and much of the 4th Panzer Army and smashed the XXXXVIII Panzer Corps, including the 22nd Panzer Division. Many of the division's tanks had been parked in dugouts for an extended period of time and protected from the frost by straw. When the tanks were called on to respond to the Soviet offensive, many could not be started because mice had sought refuge in the straw and then in the tanks where they chewed up the insulation of electric system wires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Elon Musk may have a rat problem.

Fans of the South African billionaire’s electric cars say rats, mice and rodents are chomping down on their Teslas. And despite having dropped tens of thousands of dollars to buy the pricey vehicles, Tesla refuses to cover the damage.

Why would Tesla be obligated to cover this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 4:52 PM, CharonY said:

This is part of an interesting and ongoing discussion among historians. A position that was developed directly post WWII is basically grounded in a similar reasoning provided here. If an invasion was necessary, the losses would have been huge. Thus the loss of civilian lives would have been acceptable.

 

I've never really understood the special place reserved for nuclear weapons in WWII wrt 'morality'. Death is death, and the atomic bomb was no more indiscriminate than fire bombing. As long as the war was still raging I feel the Americans were basically obligated to use the weapons at their disposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I've never really understood the special place reserved for nuclear weapons in WWII wrt 'morality'. Death is death, and the atomic bomb was no more indiscriminate than fire bombing. As long as the war was still raging I feel the Americans were basically obligated to use the weapons at their disposal.

I think the question was more how close Japan was to surrender even without the twin atomic bombs (or after the first). That being said, when it comes to the morality of the issue, the firebombings (or general attacks involving civilian targets) has been part of the discussion. That being said, I am not sure what the general consensus is (or if one exists). Certainly it generated quite a bit of literature and discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why would Tesla be obligated to cover this? 

Let the court decide that.

As for the specified episode of their WW2, the mice created a problem for the Germans only with the 38(t) tanks of Czechoslovak production, the German Panzer 2, Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 tanks had inedible wiring insulation for rodents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the question was more how close Japan was to surrender even without the twin atomic bombs (or after the first).

Certainly we were not going to stop all bombing though. If we had not dropped the two bombs we would have continued killing people other ways even though peace may have been near. The atomic bombs were just another tool the Americans had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The Chinese have released a video  advocating for the nuclear bombing of Japan, should they come to Taiwan's aid, during a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez on Tuesday suggested that the US should explore the option of air strikes against Cuba.

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-mayor-says-us-should-consider-air-strikes-against-cuba-2021-7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"History is always written by the winners". So, what you read and learn in historical books in majority are lies, (mis)interpretations, concealments of unpleasant facts, etc. etc.

Distortion of the truth is part of "patriotic" political activity.. Weak minds are easy to manipulate by populistic politicians..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"History is always written by the winners". So, what you read and learn in historical books in majority are lies, (mis)interpretations, concealments of unpleasant facts, etc. etc.

Distortion of the truth is part of "patriotic" political activity.. Weak minds are easy to manipulate by populistic politicians..

You often offer pithy relevent comments, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one because it is too general and sweeping, although there is a grain of truth in it.

Even for Military History, at least some historians try to be objective, and usually the further back in time they go the more objective they become.

A marvellous example of this, in the History of Science would be the book by Millikan originally entitled Atomic Physics, but revised several times as new knowledge became available to end up as Electrons(+ and-) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays.

Another good example would be Waters of the World by Sarah Dry which is a developmental History of Climate Science.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@studiot To be able to catch discrepancies between presented versions of the history, you would have to compare books, articles, movies and other materials in different languages (countries involved) about the same event. e.g. what China authors wrote about 1st and 2nd Opium Wars, versus what English authors wrote (in 2nd also French and Russian versions).

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

Even for Military History, at least some historians try to be objective, and usually the further back in time they go the more objective they become.

The older event is analysed, they can't even agree about quantity of forces involved and casualties of some battle.. with even less data about civil casualties..

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

A marvellous example of this, in the History of Science would be the book by Millikan originally entitled Atomic Physics, but revised several times as new knowledge became available to end up as Electrons(+ and-) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays.

History of science is in completely different category than history of wars, conflicts and politics between countries and nations. It is history of discoveries. Unattractive for populist politicians to alter on purpose to push their version..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

@studiot To be able to catch discrepancies between presented versions of the history, you would have to compare books, articles, movies and other materials in different languages (countries involved) about the same event. e.g. what China authors wrote about 1st and 2nd Opium Wars, versus what English authors wrote (in 2nd also French and Russian versions).

The older event is analysed, they can't even agree about quantity of forces involved and casualties of some battle.. with even less data about civil casualties..

History of science is in completely different category than history of wars, conflicts and politics between countries and nations. It is history of discoveries. Unattractive for populist politicians to alter on purpose to push their version..

Whilst I agree that there are vested interests in every branch of History, and none more so than in Political History, I see you are missing the notion that a historian in an uninvolved country, or from an uninvolved time, can dispassionately examine the availbale data and present balanced conclusions.
IOW you seem to be suggesting that say a modern South American could have no valid opinion on the Celtic expansion in Europe 4,000 years ago ?

I would also point out that the thread is entitled Military History/History and you made a sweeping statement about all forms of History.

As to the data, many nations have something like the UK 40 year rule where top secret papers are not released until 40 years after the events.
So anything inside that time frame must include a goodly measure of speculation.

So I repeat my observation that

The more remote (in time and place) the chronicler is from the events the more objective she can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the fact that 'harm done' is a perception, obviously more evident to the victim than the aggressor, there is also the undeniable fact that some regimes/governments are more controlling of the information flow to their general population.
Any country that has a 'state media', will tailor information to place themselves in better light, and hide unpleasentries from the general population.

Say what you will about Western nations, but a free press is not controlled by the government, and are free to publish/transmit as they see fit, which unfortunately produces uncontrolled garbage like Fox News sometimes.

10 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez on Tuesday suggested that the US should explore the option of air strikes against Cuba.

Exploring the option of air strikes is vastly different from continuous nuclear bombing until Japan offers unconditional surrender again, and relinquishes control of two strategic islands to China.

One is a contingency plan, like there are for strikes against Iran, North Korea, or even Russia; the other seems to be a Chinese government policy for militaristic expansion of Chinese control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 1:48 AM, studiot said:

You often offer pithy relevent comments, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one because it is too general and sweeping, although there is a grain of truth in it.

Even for Military History, at least some historians try to be objective, and usually the further back in time they go the more objective they become.

A marvellous example of this, in the History of Science would be the book by Millikan originally entitled Atomic Physics, but revised several times as new knowledge became available to end up as Electrons(+ and-) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays.

Another good example would be Waters of the World by Sarah Dry which is a developmental History of Climate Science.

 

While I agree to some extent, I think the  objective is a tricky word. There is always some context in history and historiography is an important element to interpret how folks interpreted events. History is rarely only about the sequence of events and the moment someone tried to connect dots it is almost impossible to not be coloured somewhat by the experience, knowledge and perspective of the historian.

Even in science history the story of Henrietta Lacks or the role of Rosalind Franklin can be accurately presented in very different ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.