You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history.
- Thread starter Kurayami
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?Because it made sense. Stalinist doctrine required expansion. Western Europe hated the Bolsheviks (and in fact had every intention of using eastern Europe as a buffer zone had WW2 not happened.) Germany made a pretty good ally. Especially considering that the Germans were willing to concede half of poland, most of Eastern Europe, and a good portion of Finland/Scandinavia to the Soviets under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.Why did Stalin accept the Nazi-Soviet pact with Hitler and why did Hitler decide to break it before he was done in the west?
The Germans broke it because they never had any intention of honoring it--National Socialism and Bolshevism were diametrically opposed (at least in the eyes of their respective leaders. In practice, Stalin and Hitler weren't much different.) The Germans simply knew that all of Western Europe would be set against them if they ever stopped their appeasement strategy. Temporarily allying with the Soviets was a wise way to quickly cut through opposition in eastern Europe.
However
Remember that Molotov-Ribbentrop was largely under the table at the time it was enacted.
Nobody outside of the upper echelons of Soviet and German government really knew the true terms of the agreement.
Vegas says 2:1.off topic question
how big of a faggot is drsupey and if you were a betting man what are the odds of drsupey being a lonely virgin
That is almost impossible to answer accurately. China has a brown water navy, is logistically anemic, and relies mostly upon neutered, inferior Soviet designs.How many years away is China from having a modern, mobile military? (or will they never have one?)
Last I saw, their first CV is supposed to put to sea by 2014. That will be one of their first steps towards having a modern military. Beyond that...
They either need to buy honest to God Russian equipment on the export market, or vastly expand their military spending in order to achieve parity with the West through domestic means.
On top of this, their military is absolutely gigantic. It's relatively immobile, but it's huge. Upgrading it to 21st century standards will be a massive undertaking.
Optimistically, I would say 30 years.
Pessimistically, I would say >50.
China will unquestionably be the dominant power by 2100, though.
Vanster - From what little he has revealed, he has had a very cool/full life. Also: Similar interests.Well if we're doing off topic questions:
If you could have a beer with 3 people from TW, who would it be and why?
Kelven - Cool guy/similar interests
Fancy Cat - He pissed off Gigafool and it was really funny. Also, it's hard to not like him.
There are others. Cav Scout's a cool guy, for example. So's Log Roller. There's probably a dozen or so TWers I'd actually hang with.
But I don't like beer.
Make it something hard and I'm game.
Are the marines relevant in this day and age?
Yes.Are the marines relevant in this day and age?
Although they really need to stop thinking that they're anything but quasi-independent navalized infantry, because that is what they are.
Navalizied infantry will have a place as long as there are navies, which is why basically every military power fields some form of it.
August Storm occurred after the first US atomic bombing...-August Storm (arguably what prompted the nuclear attacks on Japan)
Yes.August Storm occurred after the first US atomic bombing...
But everything I've read suggests that
A: US intelligence was well aware of what was coming
and
B: US intelligence had every confidence that it would be successful.
This was distressing because Zhukov was involved and because the US had noticed a pattern in Soviet behavior. Basically, they were not leaving any country that they "liberated" from the Germans.
Allied Command did not want to see what was happening in Europe also happen in the Pacific.
Getting to Japan to capitulate quickly was top priority.
The nuclear bombings were as much a message to the Soviets as they were to the Japanese.
Offhand?Kura,
What is the crash history of the SH-60 in U.S. Naval operations?
Do I have a higher chance of death in a chopper than an F-18?
What about in a P-3?
Thank you,
V
I have no data on crash history of the SH-60.
I do, however, know that the Australians have had very bad luck with their S-70s (basically the export H-60.)
You have a much higher chance of death in a rotary wing aircraft than a fixed wing aircraft. It is, however, still small. Essentially, the only type of failure in a fixed wing aircraft that all but guarantees death is the loss of your aerofoils (wings.) A chopper can go down with the loss of the tail rotor or main rotor, and choppers are more mechanically complex and prone to failure/damage than fixed wing aircraft.
While choppers can auto-rotate to land, the loss of the tail rotor basically means that the torque from the main rotor is going to kill you.
I don't know a hell of a lot specifically about the P-3.
But:
It has been around for half a century and has been exported to more than a dozen countries.
There don't seem to be a lot of loud complaints about it, so I'd assume it's a fairly safe aircraft.
Yeah. The Manchurian campaign was pretty amazing.The Soviets also cut through the Japanese like a hot knife through butter, if i remember correctly.
A lot of people don't realize that the Japanese and Soviets fought in '39 as well at Kalkhin-Gol.
The Soviets won that as well.
kura, why not become a professor in this field? I had a history professor once who specialized in 19th century warfare, and would go on for hours about napoleon's campaigns. I think it would be something you would really enjoy.
Good question.
My own:
What is the current situation with the Osprey? For an aircraft that doesn't seem all that complicated, it's had a disastrous history, both in terms of cost and crashes. What went wrong with this project?
Most likely.kura what do you think the future of warfare is?
more low intensity, asymmetrical conflicts like iraq?
But with increased eastern (Russia/China) direct influence.
I don't know.will we ever see large scale battles and massive sweeping invasions like WW2?
It's possible. There are a number of plausible "WW3" scenarios out there involving Russia, China, and India/Pakistan.
However, I believe that every single one of those conflicts would go nuclear.
Any major deployment in the 21st century will be undertaken with this understanding.
I think that the second half of the 21st century will see a major revision of NBC technologies/tactics in response to emergent threats. It could get very ugly.
A lot of my professors have advocated me going into teaching.kura, why not become a professor in this field? I had a history professor once who specialized in 19th century warfare, and would go on for hours about napoleon's campaigns. I think it would be something you would really enjoy.
The problem is that I cannot stand incompetence (dumb students) and I really have no desire to play politics. Though I would love the freedom to research whatever I felt like, which is really only an opportunity that academia affords.
I'd never get tenure, though.
I'd make too many dumb kids cry.