- Location
- Nashville
Though on the video about Lend Lease, there is a comment by Military History Visualized that kinda extends the confusion on the impact of lend lease.
Link to MHV Video Here
Link to TIK LL Video Here
Last edited:
A Supercarrier and a College (Newport, Rhode Island ISOT)
- Thread starter Skywalker_T-65
- Start date
- Post-1900 Supernatural
Though on the video about Lend Lease, there is a comment by Military History Visualized that kinda extends the confusion on the impact of lend lease.
Link to MHV Video Here
Link to TIK LL Video Here
Thank you for the information/clarification.
From personal knowledge, your endurance rating of the escorts at max speed is... optimistic. Also, typical cruising speed of the CV escorts is typically in the mid- to high- teens, not 20 knots, while amphibs are notably less. And the shaking at max speed would also cause notable fatigue in the hull as well as increasing the likelihood of something coming loose over time.
A point that is made by your mentioning the GTMs powering the Ticonderogas, the LM2500 (NOT classified information; also propelling and powering the Burkes), would serve as a tech manual source (onboard the relevant ship) and physical reverse engineering example for jet propulsion in general.
No problem. On the endurance at flank, I was just estimating based on the theory that the Navy probably wouldn't want to have the ships run their bunkers completely dry doing the twelve-hour sustained flank test during sea trials, and my guess on cruising speed was based on how WW2 ships were designed to cruise at 15 knots--I figured they were designed to cruise a bit faster, if only so that they could keep up with faster convoys in wartime (as merchies are quite a bit faster now than they were then).
You're quite right about the LM2500s on the tin can; be it a Tico, a Burke, or a Sprucan, they all use the same engines, and would certainly do a lot to advance, from the design standpoint, jet propulsion in general, and turboshaft/turboprop engines in particular. Likewise, if it's a Spruance and not a Flight I Burke, the embarked SH-60s would provide a damn good model for turboshaft engines and helicopter design... particularly if the maintenance crews are trained well enough to be able to strip it down to a completely bare frame, then put it back together again without needing any replacement parts--since it would be... unpleasant to try and dismantle it to reverse-engineer if you know you can't reassemble it again, given the obvious capabilities it has...
- Location
- Neptune
All this is still dancing around the biggest issue: Downtime just LOST their Naval War College - every officer, every instructor, every student. All the people in the pipeline to be thrown into the war effort are gone. All the ongoing research and operational planning, all the trusted and vetted Navy personnel - gone! Replaced with something that isn't quite completely unlike the real thing but is not integrated with the rest of the Navy, operates under a different doctrine, is not geared up to churn out the officers the war effort requires, and most of all - can not be trusted!
Basically, the Navy will be okay in maybe the short term but in the medium term, as casualties grow and replacements aren't coming in the numbers required, they will be fucked.
Btw, what was the industry like in Newport in 1941? Because that's all gone too and the uptimers' local Walmart just lost its supply chain.
Actually, the merchant vessels are more efficient, not faster. The figure I have seen when getting some of my qualifications was typically between 5 and 12 knots.
As to the Burkes, it wasn't until Flight IIA that the helo hangars were put onboard, which would be after the event. This version is (other than the helos, and the sonar, of course) notably less fit for a WWII ASW role due to added awkwardness with the torpedo tubes. Of "hilarious" coincidental interest, the Burke that would most likely be caught up in the event would probably be DDG 77, USS O'Kane, named after RADM O'Kane, a contemporary submarine commander during the event arrival time; the "funny" part is that submariners typically view destroyers as their natural enemies (for good reason).
On the HSL detachment, the maintenance is handled by the detachment, not the ship's crew - if onboard, the proper maintainers and tech manuals (as well as PMS (maintenance) cards) would be onboard as well. The only thing that ship's crew would have available (the BMs), would be landing procedures and deck gear handling.
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
Actually, modern US Navy surface combatants seem to be designed to steam at 20 knots. At least, that's what all the range figures are built around.
While true, do remember that the officer cadre that was just lost was a bunch that was largely resolving its cranial/rectum inversion syndrome regarding war prosecution. Not only is this vastly offset by the information resources that was brought back, increasing training efficiency enormously, but the facilities are better setup to be training more people. This information also contains bona fide information that would match the "known" timeline to create a tentative trust relationship.
As to the industrial question, not only would the "loss" remove some serious issues in pipeline supplies already present, this is also an America that is just starting to hit wartime industrial stride. Any industrial losses would be easily made up, to the detriment of only a few special interests.
While they may be designed to, they in general don't. The reason comes down to cost of fuel and effective endurance between replenishment - that extra few knots slower provides noticeable savings.
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Nah, it's not the advanced radars that would make the biggest military difference. It's stuff like "no, you idiots, group up ALL of your fleet carriers and have them operate as a cohesive unit! And your torpedoes are absolute garbage. And don't trust the Soviet Union. At all. In fact, stop helping them."
Again, the anti-Soviet sentiment is over the top and counterproductive. Be canny with them, yes. Watch for spies and use uptime knowledge to sweep up known ones, yes.
Treat them as enemies...no, that is just stupid. The USSR is fighting for its life against the most formidable foe the Axis contained, who unilaterally declared war on the USA. (It's not like he had zero cause to to be honest, but there is no need to wake that sleeping dog at this point--the optics and technical facts agree, Hitler DOWed the US before we could declare against him. Most Americans think he had zero cause, and certainly his declaration in the wake of Pearl Harbor was egregious; it's not like Japan had joined him when he unilaterally attacked the Soviets. The only point of view I can think of from which Hitler's DOW against the USA was rational was that Hitler wanted to position himself--again, optics--as the "leader" of the Axis and letting the Japanese twist in the wind unless FDR could force through the USA declaring against Germany first would not look like the act of the ultimate master of the world. So, fascist nuttiness is the only reason for it IMHO).
So, one war at a time. In fact remember, all you premature Soviet stompers...we never did actually go to war directly with the Soviets, and the notion that the various peripheral brushfire wars we did get into where perhaps we might have some US fighters engaged against actual Russians in client state uniforms was some kind of master plan of the Kremlin is readily discredited by learning about the actual process behind the Iron Curtain. The truth of the matter is that in places like Korea, Vietnam and Cuba we dealt with home-grown do it yourselfer revolutionaries who dragged the Soviets into the conflict (in much the same way I figure Hitler jumped the gun to declare war on the USA above---it was a matter of prestige for the Kremlin; failure to support these loose cannons would discredit the Soviet claims to be leaders of world revolution.
Everyone tends to fight the last war. In the Cold War the notion that Stalin was exactly like Hitler kept misleading us into stupid positions.
Churchill knew what he was doing in seeking to secure the positive and integral alliance of the USSR, and knew there would be a price to pay for it, and knew that that price was quite worth defeating Hitler.
Treat them as enemies...no, that is just stupid. The USSR is fighting for its life against the most formidable foe the Axis contained, who unilaterally declared war on the USA. (It's not like he had zero cause to to be honest, but there is no need to wake that sleeping dog at this point--the optics and technical facts agree, Hitler DOWed the US before we could declare against him. Most Americans think he had zero cause, and certainly his declaration in the wake of Pearl Harbor was egregious; it's not like Japan had joined him when he unilaterally attacked the Soviets. The only point of view I can think of from which Hitler's DOW against the USA was rational was that Hitler wanted to position himself--again, optics--as the "leader" of the Axis and letting the Japanese twist in the wind unless FDR could force through the USA declaring against Germany first would not look like the act of the ultimate master of the world. So, fascist nuttiness is the only reason for it IMHO).
So, one war at a time. In fact remember, all you premature Soviet stompers...we never did actually go to war directly with the Soviets, and the notion that the various peripheral brushfire wars we did get into where perhaps we might have some US fighters engaged against actual Russians in client state uniforms was some kind of master plan of the Kremlin is readily discredited by learning about the actual process behind the Iron Curtain. The truth of the matter is that in places like Korea, Vietnam and Cuba we dealt with home-grown do it yourselfer revolutionaries who dragged the Soviets into the conflict (in much the same way I figure Hitler jumped the gun to declare war on the USA above---it was a matter of prestige for the Kremlin; failure to support these loose cannons would discredit the Soviet claims to be leaders of world revolution.
Everyone tends to fight the last war. In the Cold War the notion that Stalin was exactly like Hitler kept misleading us into stupid positions.
Churchill knew what he was doing in seeking to secure the positive and integral alliance of the USSR, and knew there would be a price to pay for it, and knew that that price was quite worth defeating Hitler.
- Location
- Nashville
And besides, all those eggheads that were here are gone, we're the best ya got. Also you ain't gonna be producing any more torpedoes anyway, so how about we try some new ideas?
Shaithan
Re-class is happiest class
- Location
- The worst part of Germany
Hitler's world view was pretty anti-American as well. From what I read, his sequel to Mein Kampf contained a lot of rhethoric of the nature that the USA needs to be destroyed, on ideological grounds, economical grounds, racial grounds and pettiness.
But of course!
First, I'm talking about the optics from the point of view of Americans mostly.
Second, Hitler generally liked to plan things out in advance, and the plan ideally would not even have had Britain involved in the continental war, let alone the USA; first assimilate the Soviet Union, then move on Britain, then having secured the eastern hemisphere, finally move on the western, that I believe was the plan. Putting off conquering either Britain or the USA hardly implied Hitler hated them less, just that it was necessary to follow a sequence to victory.
Thirdly I figured everyone here would know what I was alluding to...that FDR did in fact desire the USA play a key role in stopping Hitler, and had been edging up the provocations against German naval activities. Not that I think he was unjustified in this; "naval" activity mostly meant U-boats and the way the Germans would stop supplies from getting to Britain from the USA would be by sinking the ships carrying them. The point is Roosevelt was no pacifist and no isolationist and had Hitler been cold blooded enough to shrug off the appearance of wimpiness among fellow fascists and leave the war declaration ball in the American court, I suppose Roosevelt would have found some excuse eventually. The point being American and Reich naval vessels were already clashing fatally before Pearl Harbor day, sooner or later something would snap. But it was a godsend to Roosevelt to have Hitler simple things up for him by spontaneously declaring war himself.
And therefore a dumb move on Hitler's part IMHO, all the dumber when we figure Hitler would have come gunning for the Americas eventually if he could have won in the old world.
Flectarn
Uphold Kali Akuno Thought
- Location
- Queen City of the Ohio
That'll make the European front go well.
- Location
- In the depts of despair.
The trick is not about giving or not help to the russians, but the way the help is given. Use the entry of the US to the war to alter the proportion of vehicles and factory gear for more ammunition and foodstuff, just enough that the soviets will have the tools to finish the job but after the war they will need more time and retooling effort for their economy and military strategic reserves to recover. That will make them think twice about the expenditure of joining the Pacific War against Japan and post-war will limit the amount of surplus they can give the communists in China and Korea.
Last edited:
It seems to me that if people are weaselly and duplicitous, they will cause bad things to happen to themselves and deservedly so. However monstrous Stalin and many will claim (not me but many) the whole basic idea of a Communist regime may be, it gains us nothing to say "well, turnabout, let's be amoral with them!" A person, a people, a nation that will not hold itself to ethical standards sows dragon's teeth against itself.
We should not be deliberately vicious.
Now how clever is it to organize LL so as to manipulate the Soviet economy in this way? Actually I rather suspect you are recommending doing exactly what was actually done! Certainly a lot of LL was basic economic survival goods, and as the system shook down to better meet Soviet preferences, we largely moved away from giving them weapons systems and when not giving them canned food, wheat and raw materials like rubber, gave them stuff like trucks.
So the whole case for treating them in a manipulative manner is based on their ruthlessness and disregard of human life, let alone comfort and long term health, right? Here we have a people whose citizens were already accustomed to privation and terror before Hitler attacked them. Then they managed to survive, a lot of them, unspeakable privation and horrors during the war, like the citizens of Leningrad eating the paste from wallpaper like so many silverfish, God help them. Just how clever is it to foster maldevelopment of a form where they are top-heavy with arms works up the wazoo--which again, was actually their OTL preference anyway--but hope that playing carrot and stick with food subsidies will tame them?
The Soviets did not aid the Chinese Communists by giving them borscht soup and sausages and pirogies. The Chinese had to scrounge for food like everyone else in Eurasia. Nope, it was guns, airplanes, tanks, bullets that Ivan's generosity supplied. Exactly what they would be best set up with surpluses of in this system of yours--which to be fair is I think exactly what they asked for OTL! The one thing they are set up to do well is fight a modern war, or supply a modern insurgency with modern-enough stuff for their needs.
China cannot in my view be saved from Mao (or some Chinese Communist leader--Stalin personally did not like Mao and tried to have him bumped off, unsuccessfully obviously, which shows the limits to Stalin's alleged puppet-master control) unless America is prepared to base troops there on a massive scale. That's a necessary condition, it is not sufficient! Then we'd have to build up the legitimacy of the Kuomintang or worse, try to patch in some third regime on the fly. Fundamentally it is a question of, did the KMT retain any legitimacy in Chinese eyes by this late date? My impression is, no they did not. China is going to go Red, sooner or later, unless we manage a political Hail Mary pass of unprecedented and groundless success. The only optimistic outcome is if we could somehow manufacture solid legitimacy for an anti-Communist regime, and that turned out to be way beyond our capabilities in say Vietnam; we thought we did it in the Philippines but probably we just got lucky with Ramon Magasaysay. And the Philippines are a whole different deal than China or Indochina!
But of course American leadership, perhaps for basically racist reasons but with shrewd insight, had a deathly aversion against putting large numbers of non-volunteer US troops at risk of a big ground war in east Asia; they'd never fulfill the necessary if not sufficient condition of putting a zillion GI Joes on the ground to reinforce the Nationalist defense to the degree that would be needed.
Personally, I don't think a karmic theory of history has any objective basis.
But more to the point, the question of what you or I think is moral doesn't really matter. What matters is how the people of 1941 will react, and given the jockeying among the Allies even in OTL it would strain belief that with the prize that has just dropped in their laps they wouldn't at least try to maneuver events to their advantage. How could they resist, with confidence borne of foreknowledge? The officers of the Naval War College of 1998 are unlikely to be soft on the Soviet Union either, being less than seven years removed from the end of the Cold War.
That's not to say those actions will necessarily take the form of reduced aid, but that's certainly a possibility.
As for the Chinese Civil War, it's certainly possible the KMT could have won, especially with hindsight on their side. There are plenty of what-ifs that explore a KMT victory even without the benefit of help from the future. Too many variables to say anything is certain, but the same token applies to Mao's victory.
But more to the point, the question of what you or I think is moral doesn't really matter. What matters is how the people of 1941 will react, and given the jockeying among the Allies even in OTL it would strain belief that with the prize that has just dropped in their laps they wouldn't at least try to maneuver events to their advantage. How could they resist, with confidence borne of foreknowledge? The officers of the Naval War College of 1998 are unlikely to be soft on the Soviet Union either, being less than seven years removed from the end of the Cold War.
That's not to say those actions will necessarily take the form of reduced aid, but that's certainly a possibility.
As for the Chinese Civil War, it's certainly possible the KMT could have won, especially with hindsight on their side. There are plenty of what-ifs that explore a KMT victory even without the benefit of help from the future. Too many variables to say anything is certain, but the same token applies to Mao's victory.
Last edited:
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
The KMT could have won if they had more than a handful of AT weapons, more fighter planes and rudimentary training for their troops. Also sacking the politically appointed officers which was harder said than done. Japanese Army supply was pretty abysmal, there are records of food just rotting on the docks in Korea because the infrastructure was just not there to transport it to the front.
So, with a little bit more commitment to the KMT (more lend lease up the Burma Road, less politicking, the Tigers will be called away due to the US actually entering the war now and will be rebased in Burma shortly) it's plausible that they hold legitimacy for longer.
So, with a little bit more commitment to the KMT (more lend lease up the Burma Road, less politicking, the Tigers will be called away due to the US actually entering the war now and will be rebased in Burma shortly) it's plausible that they hold legitimacy for longer.
FailLord
2050 lb bombs?
- Location
- very high up
I might be getting my history wrong but, didn't Chiang Kai-Shek save up alot of manpower and equipment for fighting the communists after the second world war?
He tried, but he also did most of the fighting in China during WW II. So he burned through most of the equipment.
FailLord
2050 lb bombs?
- Location
- very high up
Oh, I really need to touch up on my Asian history.
But, what lead to Chiang being nicknamed "General Cash-My-Check " or was this just slander?
That is from him effectively extorting the US for war goods to keep fighting Japan. Otherwise he would stop harressing Japan in China. The US was unwilling to call that bluff or find out how much of one it was.
Not that the US efforts in China was highly rewarding. The corruption sucked away huge amounts of money and material.
And the few armies that Chiang created got shredded by Japan due to bad logistics (Not that Japan was much better, but they had far less corruption).
Last edited:
- Location
- In the depts of despair.
The reason why the banzai charge was invented wasn't to create an efficient way to commit suicide by enemy action, it was because chinese soldiers often lacked rifles and ammunition but had plenty of barely trained conscripts so having a small unit of japanese soldier charging with a bayonet (and even japanese LMG had bayonets) while shooting and screaming victory was enough to drive much larger numbers of the poorly trained chinese levies running. That the tactic was useful for the whole war in China that it was incorporated to the ground forces doctrine shows just how bad was the corruption and incompetence in the chinese armies.
Last edited:
I don't really count those as armies. I'm talking more like the Chinese forces around Nanking that held the Japanese army back for a while. Not that was a great force by any Western standards, but it was one of the most professional non-Japanese armies in Asia at the time.
The big killer in China at the time was the corruption that was sapping away resources from fighting the Japanese and the Communists. For instance, the US had to nearly triple the money they put into building 4 B-29 bases in China, and even then they estimated that only half of the original amount was actually used to build the bases.