New answers tagged

0

The passage means that if you want a fight, you should not meet the enemy on his side of a river which he needs to cross. The reason is fairly obvious. You should wait for him to cross first, and fight on your side of the river with his back to the water. If you win, you will destroy him. Better yet, you should wait until he has crossed the river with half ...


2

Blockade requires local superiority To enforce a blockade at a chokepoint, you need to arrive there and stay there, winning any engagements. To win local engagements, you need to be stronger than an expected blockade-breaking force. WW2 Germany simply could not do that. A blockade, no matter if it is done by a handful of subs, or a handful of destroyers, ...


0

Many folks forget Great Britain had a very formidable submarine force in World War 2 too. What made U-Boats such a menace was the Fall of France and the opening of the Ports of Brittany to the Kreigsmarine. This opened up the Atlantic but not the Med as there were and in fact still are three entrances to the Med... Gibraltar, Suez and the Bosporus. Germany ...


1

The Germans lost 10 destroyers in the naval battles surrounding the conquest of Norway in 1940. These losses represented half of the modern destroyers constructed by Germany after WWI. It took Germany several years to construct replacement vessels. A blockade of Gibraltar would have been difficult to maintain without the involvement of neutral Spain to ...


7

Using the Wikipedia article as source, lances were indeed once-use items for shock attacks. If they hadn't splintered then they were sure to have gotten stuck, so they were intended to be dropped. This is with the heavy lances most people seem to have in mind, when they think of a charge by heavily armoured knights. However, anecdotal, I'm friends with ...


9

I'm not a historian nor a scholar of sorts, but I was lucky to be at the right place at the right time and found out from one of the most capable people who could answer this question. I lived in Madrid, Spain in the late 60s, early 70s. My father grew up as a teenage Nazi in WWII. Not his choice but actually my grandfather's. My grandfather wasn't a Nazi ...


5

The Strait could and was blockaded with just Gibraltar. Their landward side was cut off by the neutral Spanish. Their seaward approaches were defended by the powerful Force H. The land across the Strait was neutral Spanish Morocco. Gibraltar was fairly secure. Once the Vichy French fleet at Mers-el-K├ębir was crippled and later the Italian fleet at Taranto ...


7

Two missing point: The first one is that "German-controlled" Vichy France is an oversimplification. The status after the French armistice was that France surrendered, was left as an independent state which was neutral both to the Allies and the Axis. The Germans occupied Paris and the Atlantic coast to avoid an allied invasion, but legally even the ...


9

While you are at it why not blockade the port of London? Isn't that a better target? You could come in with 20 subs get 40 kills and go out in a blaze of glory as all the subs are spotted and sunk. The real reason is air power and counter attacks. Submarines are expensive. If you kill one merchant ship and lose the sub that killed it, it's a net loss for ...


178

...but if the Strait is guarded such that they can't get them without braving an enfilading strafe of torpedoes, then it wouldn't do much good even if they knew where they are. From this comment by the OP, and others like it, it seems they don't appreciate the tactical limitations and vulnerabilities of a WWII submarine. I'll address that. While WWII ...


33

Gibraltar during the war had a quite formidable British naval presence (Force H), an airfield, and significant coastal gun emplacements easily capable of covering the entire strait. The primary batteries were a set of twin 9.2" naval guns guns at the southern end of the peninsula, which had sufficient range to interdict all surface naval traffic through ...


0

It was actually more of Dwight D Eisenhower's decision. His primary objective was to reach Berlin before the Red Army did. The Allies wanted to secure Berlin, end the war in Europe. And this would enable US to concentrate on the Pacific front, where it was locked in an intense conflict with Japan. One more factor, was that Hitler had ordered the destruction ...


-1

In addition to the HAARP projects which are well mentioned above which achieved velocities of Mach 10 at an extraordinary altitude of 300,00 feet there is also speculations concerning a "Project Thor" which drops a tungsten rod straight down from outer space...and is perfectly legal actually. The theoretical power of such a weapon is quite spectacular.


0

PBS's episode titled "Bombing Hitler's Supergun" never mentioned the Luxembourg tests. They did note that the gun was tested in occupied Poland in a proof of concept. The focus of the episode was the efforts to destroy the gun although they did a scale proof of concept with rifle barrels and rifle shells to show that they could use the hot gases to ignite ...


0

I can't think of a single one militarily. The last time I can think of any actual cooperation was under "Nunn/Lugar" which involved the deconstruction of the former Soviet Union's vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons. There are rumors that the USA and Russia are cooperating in Syria...but Russia's stated goal is to keep Assad in power whereas the USA has ...


3

Depends somewhat on your definition of 'engagement' and 'conflict'. (Or, in the case of Syria, your definition of 'joint'...) The UNTSO peacekeeping/observation mission in the Middle East had a permanent allocation of both American and Soviet military representatives (36 of each) between 1973 and the end of the Cold War. UNTSO still has Russian ...


0

There were not many military interventions by the USSR in the decades between WWII and ISIS. The Soviet Union only fought with Afghanistan and China during these decades, and a couple of 'invasions' of Warsaw pact countries. This list shows where the USSR fought in these years. Comparatively, the US actively fought in Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, ...


2

The Mongols, the Turks, and the Turkic peoples living in Asia between them, all seem to have similar "folk wrestling" styles that tend to center on takedowns (rather than pinning or throwing out of a certain area). Based on that, it seems fair to say that there was likely a common Altaic wrestling style ancestral to all of them. Regardless of that though, ...



Top 50 recent answers are included