Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

26

Yet another concurring (tanks were important, but not the only reason), but different, answer. Already at the end of WWI, the tactics for trench assault had improved. Instead of just swarming enemy trenches with infantry, weak points were exploited and strongholds bypassed. The role and nature of artillery support also changed. The barrages that lasted ...


23

This is probably a slightly garbled account of the destruction of Shuri Castle in Okinawa. During the Second World War's Battle of Okinawa, the battleship USS Mississippi shelled the historical Ryukyu palace for three days prior to its capture by US marines. At 0718 on May 25, the Mississippi began a murderous onslaught with her 5 and 14-inch guns that ...


12

Let me illustrate @StuartAllan's answer: if they hear "Japanese castle", people think about this: And while that is pretty and impressive, it will of course be a heap of smoking rubble after no more than a few hits from a battleship's guns. But what the attacking military is really up against is this: and laying waste to it is gonna take some time... ...


10

No, tanks are not, evolving strategy for using new technology was. A quick look at the Principles of War as espoused in many military doctrines over time and across the globe (and usually posited as timeless) shows a focus on how to achieve a goal. A few key points among these lists are maneuver and initiative. In other words, warfare is about getting ...


10

The short answer is Finland had no official involvement in the siege of Leningrad. They did have a significant indirect involvement, however. Also, the Finns did do what little they could in an unofficial manor in regards to helping individuals who came to their border looking for food. What they could do didn’t amount to much but they were in a no-win ...


8

Fitting to your understanding, the stated purposes of Finland's involvement with Germany in the Siege of Leningrad was to regain lost lands from the Winter's War. To this end, they didn't participate in the direct siege far beyond the pre-war border, by Mannenheim's orders. However, they did aid the Germans in blockading Russia's supply routes. Had peace ...


6

Tanks were an important factor but not the only one. Among other factors are: Increased mobility (automobile transport, self-propelled artillery). This made possible large encirclement operations which were so common in WWII. The front can be broken in weak points and entrenched troops can be cut off. Second. Aviation is not just "another kind of ...


6

I do not know of this incident. Check naval archives or with a librarian in naval archives. This does, however, seem highly likely. The castle itself would be a smoldering ruin (as it was almost entirely wood, designed in such a way to better absorb earthquakes). The stone/Earthwork, on the other hand, would be extremely resilient to artillery fire. Getting ...


6

The Night of the Long Knives was undertaken to pacify the GENERALS and officers of the German Army, not the soldiers. The problem arose because Hitler's private "army," the S.A., was actually larger than the official army of 100,000 men permitted by the Versailles Treaty. So the leaders of the S.A. demanded that the less-numerous army be placed under them. ...


5

One intriguing use of the term "blowback" I've seen was from Bob Woodward's Veil. In propaganda terms, he used it to indicate a situation where lies told to further US interests "blew back" into US intelligence gathering, causing the US to believe their own lies. When that happens you think you know the truth when you actually do not, which can lead to ...


5

I am sorry, but as a German I must dismiss your precondition that "the Germans" hoped for a separate peace. To the best of my knowledge the Germans were in general not aware of that idea because it sounds ridiculous. Hitler had the ideological view of Lebensraum in the East, the submission of the Slavs and the enemy image of Bolshevism. There were several ...


5

I think you answered your own question. The Western Allies indeed never wavered from the doctrine of "unconditional surrender". However, some Germans did try for a separate peace and those attempts were sufficiently worrisome for the SU. The logic is simple and natural: Himmler: if I don't try, there is a certainty that I will be hanged. If I try, I ...


5

I agree with Alex, I would add up a big point, I wanted to comment it, but it became bigger. Appearance of mass parachute also made trech warfare useless. In the time when the enemy could cross only through the sea and trenches they didn't expect double front battle from trenches, but when it was possible to parachute troops beyond the trenches there were ...


4

The decrypted "Ultra" evidence revealed in "Marching Orders" suggests just the opposite: that the Japanese were more likely to attack Soviet Siberia if the Germans were successful in the Soviet Union, e.g. at Moscow, Stalingrad and/or the Caucasus, than if they attacked the United States. Therefore, in theory, Hitler should have concentrated his arms ...


4

Operation Sunrise led to the surrender of all Axis forces in Italy on 2 May 1945, 5 days before VE day. Several high ranking officers were involved in the negotiations and the story is complicated, but Field Marshall Albert Kesselring, the Commander in Chief of the Mediterranean Theater, knew of the negotiations and ultimately approved - I would call this a ...


4

Well, I happened to be native Japanese. Simply saying, the answer is because the relationship after the WW1, Japanese Imperial Army aggressively started invading China ( Second-Sino War )., which had them expanded so deep into China, whereas, the U.S and its allies were pressuring more and more on Japanese about it. ( Even Imperial Japan relied heavily on ...


4

You (or your history professors) are overly concerned with the sexual orientation and/or criminal tendencies of the SA leadership. And you make the curious assumption (or seem to) that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't to be found in the aristocracy. Yes, the German Army, with its aristocratic leadership, wanted the SA neutered. But only because it was ...


3

During Russian-Japan war and WWI the Japan wanted to be a member of the "civilized" nations club. And often behaved according to its rules. During the WWII, Japan already was the member of a very different club, the German-Italy-Japan alliance, that STRUGGLED against that old club and its rules were despised or neglected at best.


3

I think that the answer, such as it is, is to be found in Churchill’s own account, ‘Triumph and Tragedy’, published in 1953. Background: By early 1944, the British were concerned about Russian post-war policy in the East. British policy was based on the assumption that post-war cooperation with the USSR in Europe was possible and desirable. In January, ...


3

Two Problems There are really two issues you raise: 1) The contrast in the American voice (I limit myself to diplomatic and political, since the press was arguably equally anti-Japanese and anti-German) of condemnation of Japanese aggression, versus the lack of same against Germany 2) The apparent contrast in severity of provisions against Japan (in case ...


3

I don't know where you got the idea that the US was more "vocal against" Japan than the Axis powers. I picked a random week in 1938 (July 15-21) and looked at all the stories on page 1 of the New York Times. There were 8 negative stories on the Axis and 3 negative stories on Japan. And remember this was a time when Japan was actively attacking China, but ...


3

Mines, like most other passive defense systems, have a limited utility. Mines don't stay in one spot, as storms and currents move them, sometimes into your own areas. Mines fail as sea-water corrodes them. You have to place them in huge areas yet a narrow swept lane negates nearly all of their usefulness. So unless you already control the seas, your ...


2

Toward the end of the war, both sides (but more to the German side) were finding that defense in depth gave them the best option to reserve man power. Rather than a static line of defense, it used a mixture of strong points and pretargeted artillery killing fields. Let the other side attack, defense takes losses and pulls back to the next defensive strong ...


2

Re. Blitzkrieg: this is History Channel nonsense. Read the German Army's own analysis, "Legend Of Blitzkrieg" - http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/blitzkrieg-legend - which would probably have been called MYTH of Blitzkrieg, but the title was already taken. The rapid fall of France was due not to firepower concentration and mobility but to several low ...


2

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. They were desperate for a new tactic and left the trenches behind. Storm Troopers were poised on critical offensive goals that would have detrimental effect on enemy positions. Therefore abandoning the defensive trench strategy. It had nothing directly related to ...


1

I don't disagree with what others have said about Finland's actions during the Siege of Leningrad. But I wish to point out that Finland's official war aims in 1941 do not tell the whole story. Finland's official war aims in 1941 were merely to recover the territories lost in the Winter War of 1939-40, but statements by Finnish politicians reveal that ...


1

When all is said and done though, with the advent of accurate and more deadly weapons across the war fighting spectrum, movement was the key to survival. Also completely wrong. Throughout WW2 well dug-in defending troops had a large advantage over mobile ones - something like a 3 to 1 firepower advantage was required for attacks to succeed. Fixed defenses ...


1

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. This is complete nonsense. The Stormtroopers were not effective (hint: the Germans LOST the war!) What happened was that (see my previous answer) the Germans stopped trying to make holes in the enemy lines through which logistics could pass and instead had the ...


1

This definition of "Blitzkrieg" explains the reason for the abandonment of trench warfare. "Blitzkrieg is a German term describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations, and heavily backed up by close air support, forces a breakthrough into the enemy's ...


1

Hitler did, in fact, go to war with Italy, de facto, if not de jure. His "excuse" was to restore the "rightful" Italian government (under Mussolini). This was after the Italians rebelled and went over to the allies in 1943. If the Axis had been winning, the Italians might have rebelled (against Mussolini) anyway, because of the hardships of the war. In ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible