[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why is it that megalomaniac tier superweapons have historically failed to go anywhere? Apart from the nuke these sci fi tier things simply never end up Existing
>>
Expensive, prone to mechanical failure due to complexity, often designed for entirely pointless reasons rather than seeking to efficiently solve a specific problem.

What's the point of designing some giant warhammer 40k tier tank when you don't even have the infrastructure to deploy it and your enemy is trying to fucking kill you, not style on your toys
>>
>>10832926
Because it's too easy to kill any individual weapon platform, no matter how big and well armored you get. Survivability is almost always better accomplished by having lots of things than having a few super well protected things. And if you want lots, you need cheap, which goes against superweapons.
>>
It's quite simple. A big weapon is a big target, and nothing is invincible.
Also what worth is a supermarket-sized tank when it never reaches the battlefield lol
>>
>>10832939
Also, wunderwaffe are almost always made to masturbate the ruler or the high-rank military officers, or for propaganda/preening-to-other-nations reasons, and very rarely for practical purposes.
>>
>>10832926
>use all your resources to build huge "invincible" tank
>enemy completely avoids it and takes all your territory with smaller, more mobile and dynamic units built with the same cost of your fuckhuge tank
>cuts off your supply line so it runs out of fuel and is useless
That's why. And that's not even taking into account an air strike which would BTFO it. Even just fucking up the terrain would render it useless. Imagine making a few tunnels and having it sink in, you'd never get that thing out. The only use a mega tank like that would have, would be to break through an extremely heavily fortified position. Which is what the original tanks were designed for.
>>
>>10833023
This. 99% of the time they're just big pretty boom boom machines who weren't actually properly designed for combat
>>
>>10832926
my god imagine how much fuel they would have wasted to just move it around. Not just that, they would run out of ammunition quickly and the heat from the engines would make the interior near unbearable.
>>
>>10833148
Imagine how horrible would be breathing inside of that thing. Heated, stale air from 4 weeks ago straight into your burned nose.
>>
>>10832926
>>10832926
Well we had the Iowa class and yamato class next gen battleships

archemedies had an ancient heat ray

and the greeks had like a super seige tower with like a dozen ballistas and a catapult on it
>>
>>10832926
Because you only consider them to be crazy supervillain things because they didn't work
Aircraft carriers would seem like schizo bullshit if you told somebody about it in the 1890s, but by the 1940s it ruled the seas
>>
Imagine how loud this fucking thing was
>>
>>10833162
I kinda want to agree, but I just cant. Imaging I never heard of an aircraft carrier it still doesnt feel like a superweapon, its simply taking an already proven advantage - air superiority - and making it mobile.
>>
>>10833258
There's more nukes than carriers
>>
>>10833172
this is the perfect example.
greek fire, used by constantinople, might be another one.
>>
They're kind of a cope since most major countries had (and have now) secret weapons programs in the works, like whiz-bang jet fighters and so forth, but Germany was rushing them into action because they were losing the war and were trying to cope / compensate for it. They had some advanced military tech programs but this made them seem more ahead of their time than they were, rather than in an increasingly desperate situation.

And there were domestic morale-boosting factors at play. I was reading a book about the views of German soldiers in a British POW camp and the belief that super weapons would turn the war around for them was widely believed even very late in the war. Any moment this giant awesome megatank is going to smash through the gates and free us and win the war and the Allies will be BTFO'd forever #trusttheplan
>>
>>10833369
Noch zwei Wochen!
Noch zwei Wochen!
>>
>>10832926
I would say superweapons actually have a very successful record.
Super heavy siege guns, railway guns, ships of the line, battleships, aircraft carriers, high altitude strategic bombers, all worked out.
>>
The B29 could be considered a superweapon, it cost more to develop took longer to get ready for combat than the Manhattan project.

I think the germans spent more on the v2 program than the Manhattan project too.
>>
>>10833172
that thing is rad
>>
>>10832926
nukes are considered super weapons so your idea might not work
>>
>>10832926
Because of economies of scale.

A large portion of the cost of building a new type of weapon/vehicle is the cost of designing it and tooling up a factory to produce it. You have to pay that cost regardless of whether you're making one of these weapons/vehicles, or a thousand of them. And that up-front cost is higher the more complex the thing is you're trying to produce.

As a result, it's almost always more efficient to mass produce less effective weapons than it is to produce small numbers of extremely advanced weapons. For the same amount of resources as the Ratte super-heavy tank would have cost, your enemy could produce enough conventional tanks to swarm the Ratte and defeat it, with plenty of tanks to spare.
>>
Literally the only people that did this shit was Nazis, and America took the cream of that crop and let them do whatever the hell they want in RnD labs across the states
modern wunderwaffe are very real
>>
>>10833159
>Iowa class
The US could afford to run those. And they weren't that much better than every other battleship in existence.
>Yamato-class
Japan could not afford to run those. And they weren't that much better than any other battleship in existence.
>Archimedes' heat ray
Actual existence is questionable.
>Super siege tower
Doesn't employ any technology or engineering that was unprecedented for the time.
>>
>>10833159
>Iowa
Fairly basic improvements upon interwar treaty battleships+16 inch guns, not impressive as a "wonder weapon"
>Yamato
Fucking disaster, got cockblocked by planes (and a fucking destroyer at the battle off Samar)
>Greekoid heat ray
Never happened
>Greekoid compensation tower
Not uncommon
>>
>>10832926
A modern airship carrier is much more of a megaweapon than that tank ever was.
>>
That's not true, a lot of superweapons were successful: The atomic bomb, the b-29, aircraft cariers, etc.
>>
>>10832926
I would argue nuclear weapons are the exact kind of doomsday device some cackling madman would threaten the world for money with while stroking a cat, having an eyepatch, and having someone cut in half by a laser.
>>
>>10832926
with all the steel used to cover that in armour you can make ten smaller tanks
ten tanks shoot more than one tank
if you shoot alot your enemy will be dead/their vechicle will be destroyed and they can't hurt you anymore
>>
>>10836618
Not really, because nuclear weapons require vast infrastructure to build and maintain, and are not really the sort of thing that a lone mad scientist could just throw together with shit off the shelves in his personal laboratory.

Honestly, a killer supervirus fits the bill more than nuclear weapons
>>
File: 1_VT-Fuze.jpg (1.02 MB, 3600x5400)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG
>>10833845
This thing here cost almost as the Manhattan project and basically rendered Japan's entire airforce so useless that the Japs decided it was better to ram their planes and pilots into ships since any action against US ships was practically suicide at this point.
>>
>>10832926
most questions like this can literally just be chalked up to "the people designing and trying it out were just trying stuff out to see what works"
WW1 and WW2 were the first mass scale industrial wars and because of that you saw shit during them that either became intregal in modern military doctrine or completely failed and was never really attempted again, with varying cases inbetween
>>
>>10832926
Ratte would have been worth it, just because every WW2 video game would then have to have a multiplayer map taking place in one.
>>
>>10832939
>>10832949
>>10833017
Basically this.
>>
File: russian nuke train.jpg (148 KB, 1000x586)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>10832926

Has there been any superweapon that's actually worked? Even nukes for all their hype have only ever seen battlefield use twice and the vast majority ever produced have just been a massive financial drain on the country that built them.
>>
File: B-29s in green paint.jpg (520 KB, 3072x2399)
520 KB
520 KB JPG
>>10833845
>The B29 could be considered a superweapon, it cost more to develop took longer to get ready for combat than the Manhattan project.

How that fuck does a plane cost more than literally splitting the atom to cause a massive chain reaction that tears solid matter apart?
>>
>>10832926

Superweapons programs tend to fall into one of two traps. They're either intended to fulfill a very specific (and often redundant) niche role at the cost of literally everything else such as efficiency, reliability, and capacity for mass production; or they're "universal" weapons that are intended to fulfill every imaginable role, but make so many compromises that they wind up being unable to do any of them.

An example of the former would be the various late-war German Panzer designs that were entirely built around use as heavy breakthrough tanks that could withstand virtually any tank gun the Western Allies could throw at it and dish out punishment that could destroy virtually any tank the Allies were fielding. The problem was that the excessive weight on vehicles such as the Tiger II, Elefant, Jadgtiger, Maus, and the proposed Entwicklung series tanks was so extreme that engines couldn't handle it, which would ruin the drive train, resulting in constant breakdowns. Not to mention such vehicles were both easy to spot and destroy from the air (and often on the ground as demonstrated when the first Jadgtiger deployed in combat was lost to friendly fire from Volkssturm conscripts using a Panzerfaust) and their intended battlefield role was almost completely redundant because Germany was completely on the defensive by the time they entered service.

An example of the latter would be the modern F-35 Lightning II, which on paper is supposed to operate as a bomber, stealth, electronic warfare, air superiority, carrier-based fighter aircraft. In reality though, it performs almost none of these tasks especially well and production costs have ballooned to the point where it would have been cheaper to field multiple types aircraft designed around these niche roles. The only reason the aircraft hasn't been axed is that so much money has been pumped into the JSF program that cancellation would financially ruin multiple defense contractors.
>>
>>10832926
>gothic/full plate armor
>bombard
>bayonet
>ironclad
>V2/ later ICBM's
>manhattan program
>supercarriers
>SSBN's
>sr-71 blackbird
all of them are superweapons that were/are very effective.
Superweapons/wunderwaffe are merely an attempt at a paradigm shift through the application of new technology. Following anon >>10833172 posts the great turkish bombard, which was a superweapon at the time. Modern artillery just shits all over it.
Because of nukes we're not seeing any (major) investments in conventional warfare, but there is a major shift towards subversion and sabotage. And we'll see "superweapons" in that field as well.
Because of their revolutionary, paradigm shifting nature, they can give an underdog the upper hand. And these underdog know it, so they invest in it. But not all superweapons are based on sound science, so some just do not work. Do not mistake "not working" for "megalomania".
>>
>>10832926
Would this be considered the tank of the Faustian Man by Spengler? If so, what would he think of the German's refusal to follow through with it? A rejection of the European spirit? An acceptance that one can not be too Faustian due to the demands of the Modern day and it's wars?
>>
>>10832926
Anon, supercarriers have been and are currently being used.
>>
>>10842778
It had major teething problems, but it laid the groundwork for every bomber that came after it. First pressurized cabin, highest altitude, longest range and best navigation systems of any plane on the planet.
>>
>>10843299
Sounds like the first steps to space flight too, in a way it's just as significant as splitting the atom.
>>
File: a.jpg (89 KB, 1920x1080)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
okay /his/, you are in charge of new superweapon being developed in us army, what is it?
>>
File: RodOfGod.jpg (72 KB, 644x209)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>10843546
Rods of God
>>
>>10843595
this is nukes but cooler, i like it
>>
>>10843614
Unlike nukes, kinetic rods require zero warhead. The solid metal itself is enough. Leaves behind bo radiation either.
>>
>>10843595
>>10843620
fairly easy to pop the entire thing in orbit though
>>
>>10843915
It's the ultimate high ground. They'll just need missile defense
>>
>>10843993
You can't defend against a ball bearing going at hundreds of kilometers per second. Earths orbit is already full of space debris that are essentially like land mines for satellites. It really doesn't take much effort to explode something in its orbital path.
>>
>>10832926
If it works people don't call it a superweapon any more.
Look at the Stratofortresses and the like. Absurdly massive bombers, but they're normalized when the US builds tons of them and uses them.
Stealth bombers - insane aggregations of technology out of a spy novel. But they're normalized when people use them all over for increasingly banal tasks.
Etc
>>
>>10842771
Stealth bombers.
Poison Gas.
Aircraft carriers.
Guided missiles.
>>
>>10843595

This
>>
>>10844155
Gas was never very effective once masks got made. Literally just an overrated meme
>>
>>10845404
Except go back even 50 years ago and it was a superweapon.
Something people could only dream of.
>>
>>10845464
No, he's right, there's a reason why everybody collectively decided to stop using it
>Causes horrendous suffering to its victims
>Once the use of gas has been established, soldiers get issued NBC gear, and gas's effectiveness as a force multiplier effectively drops to zero
>winds can blow the gas into civilian areas and cause further needless suffering
>Everybody ends up agreeing that it doesn't actually provide a strategic edge, it just makes war even more of a horrible, bloody hassle than it already was
>>
>>10842771
Machine guns
>>
>>10845979
Show a Maxim or even just a Gatling gun to someone from the 1600s and they'd call it useless clockwork horseshit.
Thats a good one.
>>
>>10832926
Logistics wins wars.
>>
>>10833023
Propaganda is a very practice purpose.
>>
>>10833829
this basically - the ones that succeed dont get remembered as superweapons, theyre just remembered as weapons. the bat bomb didnt succeed, the atom bomb did, but had the atom bomb failed and the bat bomb worked our feelings on them would be reversed - the nuke would be a historical footnote, an example of the derangement and wild experimentation of military research, while we read on the news about how a cave of taliban just got BTFO'd by the Vlad Tepes battalion.
>>
>>10834166
>Doesn't employ any technology or engineering that was unprecedented for the time.
neither does the ratte, nor did sadaams cannon.
>>
>>10842771
radar. It's become so ubiquitous that it's not thought of as a superweapon anymore, but it pretty much was when it was first went into field use
>>
>>10836618
usually when this happens in movies or media they ARE using nukes, at least as often as other super weapons. thunderball for example is about nukes.
>>
>>10839076
based
>>
>>10843388
It'd be true if the V2 program were not more advanced in most regards.
>>
>>10845620
>Everybody ends up agreeing that it doesn't actually provide a strategic edge, it just makes war even more of a horrible, bloody hassle than it already was
You say this, but every single major country still keep stockpiles over stockpiles of sarin/antrax.
>>
>>10843595
It's a shame that more than one country has the capacity to produce those... it's be MAD, but worse.
>>
>>10833023
depends what you consider wunderwaffe is, because the air to ground radio guided missiles was a wunderwaffe yet it was a very effective tool which would change warfare dramatically in the coming decades
>>
>>10847198
brainlet tier

logistics is no good if you haven't got any food or an economy

tactics-strategy-logistics-economies win wars
>>
>>10847418
All of this is not enough to win if your people is not willing to fight, as Americans were not in Vietnam.

tactics-strategy-logistics-economies-society win wars
>>
>>10847308
Can you let me tag along the next time a major country let's you go over inventory for their secret weapons? I wanna see that shit, too
>>
>>10847440
You know this sort of thing is not really secret, don't you anon?
>>
>>10847418
>Muh x wins wars
Fucking pseuds
There is only one thing that wins wars: killing your enemy
>>
File: Musketfiring[1].jpg (40 KB, 448x300)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>10832926
Because "superweapon" is just a matter of perspective.

This little thing can kill a Chad knight trained from infancy to a level that exceeds even our most highly trained navy seals with 3000 tours of duty, it will just go *PANG* straight through his ornately crafted armor. Millenia of hand to hand combat, a whole world which once revolved around skill at arms, made obsolete in the hands of a levied peasant more at home behind a plough who was probably only given 2 rounds to practice with. However we do not consider it a "superweapon" because it became normalized then surpassed.
>>
>>10847492
>There is only one thing that wins wars: killing your enemy
t. lost vietnam.
>>
>>10847492
Okay Japan.
>>
>>10847492
>killing your enemy
has this tactic ever actually worked in history?

The germans failed miserably at Verdun and in 1941 in trying this strategy
>>
>>10847554
yes, you don't kill your enemy, you drain their resources and secure logistical clinchpoints
>>
>>10847562
Or you destroy their morale until they surrender.
>>
>>10847629
>morale
again was a complete meme for the last 2 world wars
>>
>>10847705
>again was a complete meme for the last 2 world wars
Imagine if the soviet people had lower morale...
>>
>>10847730
I dunno what you're on about but the british were demoralized by 1941, no surrender, they could have been entirely smashed in north africa and i still doubt it would have done much in the grand scheme of things
the soviet population was obviously demoralized in 1942, didn't change the outcome
germans were demoralized by 1944 yet they still went on until the very end in 1945.
french in ww1 were demoralized by 1917 yet it didn't change the outcome
>>
>>10847814
Now I understand, you're using American fucked-up notions of morale...

Morale means the will to fight, the will to sacrifice resources, comfort and lives for the war... something Americans lacked and Vietnam have in excess. So we can see the result of the war: Total strategic defeat.
>>
>>10847872
you don't need any of that "morale" in an irrelevant foreign war

small difference between WW1 and the Vietnam war lol
>>
>>10832926
Too easy to bomb/destroy

Too expensive to make and operate
>>
>>10847897
>Yeah the war was minor and foreiger, so we don't need the will to fight
That's why you lost the war, because you lacked the will to fight.

Can we trust a people who lost many wars because of "it's too harsh to fight, not worth it" will not be cowards on a bigger war?
>>
>>10847872
japanese morale didn't turn the course of the war
>>
>>10847955
Indeed, but it made what should be a rather quick campain into a years long total war... if Americans had the morale they have today Japan would probably have won.
>>
>>10847919
>it's too harsh to fight, not worth it"
no, its more "its been 3 years of heavy fighting without much victory, lets call for peace"
>>
>>10847997
>It's been three years and we still didn't won, lets give up all or strategic goals.
Classical defeat for lack of morale.
>>
>>10833162
Writing about Zeppelins prior to WW1 anticipated fixed-wing aircraft launched from Zeppelins. Experiments with launching aircraft from ships had begun around the turn of the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome
>>
>>10843620
Expensive to haul that into orbit and maintain it in a ready state. Expensive to have a constellation of them deployed for semi-prompt response times.
Bad area of effect puts a premium on having and aiming down line of sight.
One does not simply "drop" things from orbit; you need to impart at least enough Delta-V for aerobraking to take over, and have some way to guide it through the turbulent atmosphere.
Overall more effort than they're worth.
>>
>>10847492
You win wars by having a political objective that can be accomplished through appropriate military action, then allocating sufficient military force to perform that action. If you play your cards right (like in Bewugungskrieg), you win even before engaging in combat.
>>
>>10847872
>. something Americans lacked and Vietnam have in excess.
North Vietnam was fighting a total war for national reunification/expansion of the revolution to the South/eliminating the latest hegemonic foreign presence, and had a secret police and propaganda apparatus to generate support for the war and punish those insufficiently loyal.
The US was fighting for unclear, shifting motives using uncertain tactics in an unknown land across the ocean, with little attempts made to secure the buy-in of the population.
Massive asymmetry of interests there.
>>
>>10847919
>will not be cowards on a bigger war?
The entire point of a war of choice is that you have chosen to fight it when it wasn't necessary. Inherently, your commitment to it will be limited, which means there is some point where continuing it could not possibly advance your goals. This idea that any war no matter how minor or poorly thought out needs to be fought for the indefinite future to protect "prestige" or "credibility" or whatever is stupid and historically leads to costly boondoggles that only destroy prestige.
>>
>>10848286
Exactly, Vietnam was fighting with total morale while the USA was fighting with low morale.

This interest are part of what is called morale.
>>
>>10848304
Every war is a war of choice for those fighting... when morale is low enough, soldiers just stop fighting or quite the army, like on USSR afghan.
>>
>>10843595
>what is the tyranny of the rocket equation
It would have taken a Saturn V to get to orbit, per rod. Did I mention that's not for the whole thing, it's per rod?
>>
>>10848319
The USSR had no compelling interests in Afghanistan that justified the deployment of the 40th army. The USSR had no clear route to win. The USSR's security did not depend on Afghanistan except in a very abstract/disconnected. There were no real consequences of defeat for them that could be prevented or held off by staying the course.
To make the argument for morale, you'd have to find a case where defeat truly had severe, direct, and foreseeable consequences for the fighting force, but they yielded anyway. And in those cases (like the ARVN), they yield for reasons upstream of morale.
>>
>>10848357
>The USSR had no compelling interests in Afghanistan that justified the deployment of the 40th army. The USSR had no clear route to win. The USSR's security did not depend on Afghanistan except in a very abstract/disconnected. There were no real consequences of defeat for them that could be prevented or held off by staying the course.
Exactly, the USSR fought a war with low morale. What you describe is textbook low morale.

"We could win if we fought for real, but we retreated." It Is still a defeat, a defeat despite superior economy, strategy, tactics and logistics.
>>
>>10848376
Low morale was a consequence of the void at the heart of the war effort. It did not cause the void. Superior resources mean nothing without a plan to convert them into desired results. If there is no plan, you're not going to win. The awareness that there is no victory in store can lower morale, with consequences for combat performance, but morale effects are still a consequence of the war effort, not an input.
>strategy
There was no strategy. The civilian leadership set force levels far below what what the military requested, then had absolutely no idea what those forces were supposed to be doing, or even what the end goal was supposed to look like. Soldiers notice the morass and feel bad. Politicians eventually notice the morass and begin looking for a way out.
>>
>>10848407
Morale is not limited to war effort, it's also tied to ideology, government, culture, customs, and generally how your people are.

Modern Europeans have low morale by default, while Afghans and Viets had insanely high morale.
>>
>>10848407
You're describing us how important is morale, on the sense of "the wiliness to keep fighting".

An element different from tactics, economy, strategy and logistics, that is needed to win or lose a war.
>>
>>10848420
>Afghans and Viets had insanely high morale.
Neither the DRA Army nor the ARVN generally had high morale. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam had a well developed repressive/propagandistic apparatus to control and direct national energies. Outside of that, both insurgencies had a clear end goal: stay alive long enough while stinging often enough and the opponent will exhaust their political capital within-country and internationally and have to go home.
Even then (especially for Vietnam), there were moments like post-Tet where insurgent morale and cohesion did meaningfully falter, necessitating other units (the PAVN) step up. Still downstream.
>>
>>10848494
Morale is not static, it tends to degrade during a war, having good baseline morale and being able to keep it while destroying your enemy morale is the essence.

This dimension of war was ignored by many countries, but used by others (like Vietnam) to win wars.
>>
>>10848494
To make a basic model, morale is a resource like industrial capacity or manpower. It starts at some point, close to pic related... and is changed by some factors, like the war is defensive or offensive, it's fought on motherland soil, on borders or oversea....

Then as the war go, it degrades depending on many factors,... and you use tools such as propaganda to diminish it's degradation rate and increase degradation on the enemy.
>>
File: hitler sled 2.jpg (61 KB, 387x480)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>10832926
>Why is it that megalomaniac tier superweapons have historically failed to go anywhere?
They do.

The problem is that when they do they're just "weapons". For notable examples see the F-22, B-2 bomber and, as you mentioned, atom bombs and then nuclear weapons. "superweapons" in the vein that you mentioned fail because it's trying to solve the wrong problem by trying to achieve what is realistically impossible.

In WW2 Germany had a resource problem and this went from bubble gum to motor oil and everything in between. In the face of the overwhelming odds Germany faced by 1943 the rational response would be to capitulate. Or at least that would be the practical response if your goal was "peace". But the task engineers were presented with wasn't "make peace" it was "kill as many enemies as possible so we win". To this goal things like the Maus and even Ratte make sense. People often like to armchair wank that "Germs could make 3 pz 4's for every Tiger II!!" Completely ignoring the fact that 3 pz 4's use 15 men while a Tiger 2 uses 5. Or that all things being equal it takes more men and resources to train, transport and supply 3 tanks instead of 1. German engineers had a very particular set of parameters they were operating within and (just like everyone else's) Germany's engineers did the best they could within them. It just so happens that the German parameters were of the war losing variety.

Putting your eggs in one basket is a sound strategy if you're facing oblivion and you don't have a lot of eggs.

In a similar way, Saddams giant cannon was trying to solve a problem they had no hope of solving because of entirely different matters.
>>
>>10847971
>if Americans had the morale they have today
If america was attacked like they were at Pearl Harbor all the bleeding hearts in California wouldn't be enough to save the poor misguided nation that carried it out.
>>
>>10848591
>People often like to armchair wank that "Germs could make 3 pz 4's for every Tiger II!!" Completely ignoring the fact that 3 pz 4's use 15 men while a Tiger 2 uses 5. Or that all things being equal it takes more men and resources to train, transport and supply 3 tanks instead of 1. German engineers had a very particular set of parameters they were operating within and (just like everyone else's) Germany's engineers did the best they could within them. It just so happens that the German parameters were of the war losing variety.
Don't forget they called up a lot of the workers and technicians for Barbarossa in 1941 and promised to send them back when the short little campaign ended which of course we know didnt. So production actually DECREASED in 1942 because these men weren't sent back to the workshops and factories.
>>
>>10848620
I genuinely doubt, the extremely hard standard of living Americans have today make a war difficult... unlike the great depression standards back then.
>>
>>10848633
We invaded half the middle east after a terrorist attack. If an actual nation carried out an attack against the US we would surgically remove their land mass from the planet.
>>
>>10848578
I'm arguing that morale is not an independent variable. It exists and affects performance at the tactical and at times strategic levels, but it is itself generated by other factors. You're not really going to have a rotten army fighting a pointless war with high morale or a great army fighting a Clausewitzian ideal war with low morale. The ability to influence morale independent of other factors, let alone in a way that meaningfully affects the outcome of the war, is quite limited.
>>
>>10848652
Nice boasting, but you retreated from MENA after your morale (that were low to begin with) dropped.

>>10848660
Just as tactics and strategy depend on others factors, but it's complex and independent enough to be considerate its own factor.
>>
>>10848660
Maybe morale is more important on modern warfare than strategy and tactics... most post WW2 was had been won with morale.
>>
>>10848666
Nice try satan but we both know we just got bored.
>>
>>10848633
If anything, development seems like a U-curb where someone fighting in a militia near their home in some failing state and someone from a developed country fighting far from home tend to have high combat effectiveness (with proper training and support), while in the middle are things like the Afghan National Army, its Communist predecessor, the New Iraqi Army, its Baathist predecessor, etc. where the combat effectiveness massively underperforms its objective material or numerical situation.
>>
>>10848682
Morale on effectiveness of combat is only a minor aspect of morale, morale are the goal of war itself, to destroy your enemy will to fight.
>>
>>10848674
Again, morale is downstream of things like strategy. US forces in Vietnam were highly motivated the first few years, but couldn't turn that into anything lasting owning to tactical and strategic deficiencies. Ironically, the situation on the ground improved even as their morale, cohesiveness, and combat effectiveness fell off owing to said strategic deficiencies. The Iranians in the later phase of the Iran-Iraq war really had nothing but zealotry and numbers, and still got booted from Iraq by a far less fanatic professionalizing Iraqi Army. US morale vis-a-vis Iraq was, if anything, higher in 2003 than 1991, yet the result was a worse outcome. High morale Vietnam completely failed to get the desired outcome in Cambodia. Low morale Democratic Republic of Afghanistan outlived its Soviet patron. The high morale Mujahideen ultimately were pushed out by the Taliban. And so on.
>>
>>10848682
Combat effectiveness is not that important, as long you can degrade your enemy morale you an fight him.
>>
>>10848729
You fai to see the whole morale, but it limited to a narrow set of combat morale.

How about civil morale, political morale, economical morale, social morale..?
>>
>>10848749
None of those (the hell is economic morale?) would change analysis of the scenarios given. Iraq 1988 does not rank significantly higher than Iran 1988 on those.
Nor does Najibullah's regime against Gorbachev's.
Or the USA 1968 vs the USA 1964, let alone unipolar 2003 America vs USSR-still-kicking 1991 America.
The Khmer Rouge and other Cambodian resistance lived in jungles behind the Thai border and fought with hand-me-downs against the "Prussians of Southeast Asia," the lavishly equipped and manned Vietnamese.
>>
>>10848784
>None of those (the hell is economic morale?) would change analysis of the scenarios given. Iraq 1988 does not rank significantly higher than Iran 1988 on those.
They'd change the scenario itself. How do I explain you the soviet school of thought?
>>
>>10843595
It's just dropping a piece of metal, it's ingenious in its simplicity.
>>
>>10842771
Tanks. Hell the word tank is a leftover from when it was a secret project and intelligence used that name to refer to it so that the enemy listening in thought it was a water-moving truck
>>
>>10848666
>Nice boasting, but you retreated from MENA after your morale (that were low to begin with) dropped.
The issue is "terrorism" is not something you can really defeat. Who surrenders to you at the peace accords in a war on terrorism? It's much easier to fight another state because it has people in charge able to tell the army to stand down.
>>
>>10848832
Then don't start a 5 trillion dollar war you know you cannot win from the start.
>>
>>10848840
That wasn't really my point but I don't disagree.
>>
>>10848856
Trying to fight a conventional war on a non-conventional enemy is peak stupidity.
>>
>>10848864
My point was you can't compare fighting islamic terrorism to fighting the country of Japan. Japan is a state, states have the ability to surrender and there are clear lines on who the enemy is.
>>
>>10848871
And my point is that war is war, even when your enemy is unconventional.

Isis has strategic goals, military forces, tactics and even it's "economy" to fuel their war machine... while not a state they are still an armed force capable of war.
>>
>>10848666
>you bought a car that turned out to be a lemon
>keep spending all your money on that car, for cred points or something
>>
>>10848886
If you start an infinite marathon, you're bonded to fail sooner or later.
>>
>>10848885
Sure but wars against states have a much clearer end and thus you can fight a conventional war against it. The start of this conversation is "America wouldn't be able to fight Japan like it did 70 years ago" and I disagree. We probably wouldn't bomb and nuke their cities like we did back but that because we aren't living in a time when everyone else is doing it. There's no way America wouldn't fight a war with an enemy that surprise attacks us a half hour before declaring war and cripples the pacific fleet. No nation wouldn't go to war after that.
>>
>>10848902
>There's no way America wouldn't fight a war with an enemy that surprise attacks us a half hour before declaring war and cripples the pacific fleet. No nation wouldn't go to war after that.
The question is: "Would the American population of 2021 be able to endure the hardships and sacrifices of a large scale war?"

Taking in account your internal division where half the population is against government at any given time. Your high standard of living, that would make sacrifices far more harsh. Your current ideologies and morals.
>>
File: morale.png (382 KB, 687x687)
382 KB
382 KB PNG
>>10848902
Take this image as an example, you can notice the "baseline" morale of certain country.
>>
>>10848926
I do take that into account, and the reality is total war isn't stopped because the people are tired of it, it stops when the war is over. The people don't have any say in this.
>>
>>10848926
>Would the American population of 2021 be able to endure the hardships and sacrifices of a large scale war?
Without a doubt. As long as the reason was simple to understand and not some extrapolated boogeyman.
>>
>>10848926
Wars usually unify populations around the regime
>>
>>10848939
But people have a say on this, people determine if your industry will work or not, if your armed forces will be efficient or will be lazy and prone to retreat, if partisans and passive no resistance will be common or not, if plain treachery will happen. If surrender will be quick or not.

>>10848948
Sometimes yes, sometimes no... depend on quite a few factors.
>>
>>10848939
Get morale low enough and soon commissars will not be enough to keep your soldier fighting, your workers working and your officers commanding.

Get if high enough and you can fight a guerrilla war even after you "lost".
>>
>>10848937
>Afghanistan
Sure helped against the Taliban and ISKP.
>Nigeria
Sure helped against Boko Haram.
>Kenya
Doing wonders against Al-Shabaab.
>Ukraine greater than Russia
Ah, so Luhansk, Donetsk and Sevastopol bow to Kiev now?
Assuming the data is accurate, that's just a map of how much the populace would unthinkingly follow the whims of their leaders.
>>
>>10848949
> if your armed forces will be efficient or will be lazy and prone to retreat
That depends on training more than popular whims. Really really wanting it doesn't magically make you competent.
>>
>>10848965
>Sure helped against the Taliban and ISKP.
>Sure helped against Boko Haram.
>Doing wonders against Al-Shabaab.
Anon anon, this morale is the morale of the Taliban and other Islamic militias, not the local government hated by the population.

Don't you know that the will to fight for your country doesn't mean the will to fight for the current government?
>>
>>10848964
Morale is not that unbounded from other features of your situation.
No action could give the Tsarists in 1917 the morale of the Soviets in December 1941.
>guerilla war
Doesn't actually require a very high share of the population, especially if you have porous borders and can bring in foreign fighters. Most people hover around neutral during civil strife. Notably, the National Liberation Front's General Offensive of 1968, despite spectacular and high-profile success, was not accompanied by a General Uprising as they expected.
>>
>>10848980
>That depends on training more than popular whims. Really really wanting it doesn't magically make you competent.
High morale don't make you competent, low morale make a trained man incompetent, prone to desertion, cowardice, and worse of all... deciding that fighting for their country is fighting against you... as it happen on Afghan, where many trained soldiers decided Taliban was right.
>>
>>10849006
It requires government morale (will of the population to fight for the official regime) to be low enough so they at least be passive to the militias, and to militia morale to be high enough, so they can keep fighting despite casualties and hardship.
>>
>>10849008
Because the Afghan government as it was, is, and will be is neither worth fighting or dying for. Short of overhauling the entire structure of the government and Afghan society, nothing they could do would magically produce high morale.
>>
>>10849028
Indeed, much like a government without weapons and other material means cannot fight, a government without enough morale (in this case unity) cannot fight.

Lack of unity is perhaps the worse form of low morale.
>>
>>10847267
Not even a weapon
>>
>>10832926

What exactly was the Ratte supposed to do? Was it supposed to be a movable heavy gun platform? Because it's obviously too big and too unwieldy to be used even as a breakthrough weapon?
>>
>>10851129
To suck up state money and give to the manufacturer.
>>
>>10833845

The B29 was not immune to jap fighters (Ki 43 hayabusa) so I won't qualify it as superweapon
>>
>>10847308
It's a deterrent. The whole thing that makes them useless is knowing that eventually your enemy will start using them on your soldiers, and then every soldier has NBC gear and the effectiveness drops off.
>>
>>10838416
>>10851246
hm
>>
>>10832926

KEEP
IT
SIMPLY
and
STUPID
>>
>>10848926
There was only a two month period where b29s were vulnerable to fighters, by the time iwojima was secured they were able to send in mustangs to fighter sweep ahead of the bombers and operational losses sharply dropped because they were no longer 1400 miles from a friendly airbase.
>>
>>10842771
Jet powered aircraft.
While there are some roles where props fit better, jet aircraft pretty much replaced all forms of propeller aircraft.
>>
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/7515576/#7517687

https://archived.moe/his/thread/7515576/#7517687



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.