Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:23 PM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,238

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Well it was the Americans who wanted to invade Ireland in WWII (if anyone on the Allied side actually did that is) not the British who were the 'calmer' head and proposed caution.

It is rumoured that Aitken in a mission to Roosevelt threatened to use the 'Diaspora' to undermine the USA's war effort if he didn't get his way and the USA pressure the UK on 'partition', Irish Americans of course would feel more loyal to Ireland than the USA.

Roosevelt simply stated if any such thing was said agian he would make it public and that would be the end of Ireland in the USA.

(I should add that this 'story' is disputed, that Aitkin and the Irish ambassador deny it or that Aitkin tried to bully the American President but it is generally agreed that the meeting were 'full and frank' and 'heated' at times)
Do you have information on a US plan to invade Ireland? If you have any concrete info, some of us would be interested. I am interested in historical war planning.

War Plan Red assigned the color "emerald" to Ireland (Canada - crimson; Australia - scarlet, etc.). No offensive operations outside the Western Hemisphere were even considered in War Plan Red. Other than the moves against British possessions in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and in Canada, War Plan Red was entirely defensive in scope.

In WW II, Iceland was more critical to the maintenance of communications with Great Britain than was Ireland. If any military move was made against Ireland, Britain would have made it, but none was necessary. Britain was Ireland's defense against German control of Europe.

That stuff about FDR is apocrypha.
pikeshot1600 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:29 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,238

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
That is not fair, the Russians were badly equipped at the start but later in the war they were fairly well equipped.
Besides, they were no worse equipped than countries like Turkey or the Netherlands.
In terms of the equipment of armies in 1914, the Russian was pretty well equipped. The army was better than the conventional wisdom says.

The officers were well educated; the NCOs were experienced and well trained; the field guns were modern and the fire control was accurate. The individual mujik was not as well equipped as German or Austrian soldiers, but the mujik's expectations were historically lower.

Russia was of course not capable of sustaining large scale operations over long periods of time. But no one else expected a war that lasted for years either.
pikeshot1600 is online now  
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:40 PM   #33

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,269
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
In terms of the equipment of armies in 1914, the Russian was pretty well equipped. The army was better than the conventional wisdom says.

The officers were well educated; the NCOs were experienced and well trained; the field guns were modern and the fire control was accurate. The individual mujik was not as well equipped as German or Austrian soldiers, but the mujik's expectations were historically lower.

Russia was of course not capable of sustaining large scale operations over long periods of time. But no one else expected a war that lasted for years either.
weapons and ammunition were in constant short supply but indeed, besides that it was not badly equipped.
bartieboy is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:43 PM   #34

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,269
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Well, yes it can I guess. The Brown Bess was an iconic British flintlock, but not very accurate past 50 paces or so. I know, I'm splitting hairs here, sorry.
And still I wouldn't want to face a volley of musket fire from 60 paces away.
What I'm getting at is that no matter how old a gun is, a gun is still a gun and is always lethal.

You can walk around with the most modern assault rifle but in the end it fires a lethal bullet, just like the first muskets.
bartieboy is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:55 PM   #35

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,135
Blog Entries: 9

The warriors of any polinesian tribe;

Click the image to open in full size.

Sticks and stones people.
Guaporense is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:57 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorge123 View Post
The chinese army in the late qing dynasty???
Wrong. The Qing dynasty built tons of modern arsenals to manufacture modern artillery and guns and munitions. The qing forces were equipped with krupp artillery, mausers and mannlichers. The qing forces were better equipped than the french in the sino french war, and in the sino japanese and boxer wars then their enemies. The eight nation alliance had no siege artillery while the qing had krupp guns which could have razed the legations. They deliberately misfired their krupp guns in beijing because they didn't want to destroy the legations, they just wanted to force them to leave to tianjin.

The qing armies at tianjin used their krupp guns for real, bombarding the foreign settlement with thousands of shells. The problem was, even though they hit their targets, the shells were manufactured without explosives due to corruption, so they just smashed through the walls and left big, gaping holes instead of explosions. If the shells had actually been filled with explosives, the top allied officers would all be dead.

Even before the opium wars, qing artillery was modern since they acquired the modern artillery designs from the jesuits to fight the russians. They defeated the russians at albazin and forced russia out of the amur river basin.

During the opium wars, the qing were equipped with artillery and matchlocks, the british with flintlocks, artillery, and congrege rockets. At chuanbi fort after a british bombardment, the qing garrison did not bother returning fire even though they could have.

The afghans were armed with the same weapons, matchlocks, swords, spears, and they managed to decimate the british army equipped with flintlocks and more advanced guns.

Last edited by deke; November 24th, 2012 at 05:07 PM.
deke is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 05:28 PM   #37

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,277

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Well, if you're referring to armed forces in general (as opposed to armies in particular), the Philippines Air Force and Navy are somewhat elderly.

The Philippines Navy's three main surface combatants are two refurbished US Coastguard Hamilton class frgates, originally launched in 1967 and 1968, and former USN Cannon class destroyer-escort, launched in 1943. It also operates several corvettes launched between 1943-1948.

The Air Force's equipment is designed primarily for COIN operations and as such, includes just under 40 Aermacchi SF-260 propeller driven trainer/light attack aircraft, Vietnam War era OV-10 Broncos and 6 Marchetti S-211 jet trainers/light attack aircraft. It no longer operates any air superiority fighters since the retirement of its fleet of F-5s.
This is very true. It's a shame that in Southeast Asia, my country ranks to be amongst the poorly armed and it's the reason China is bullying it regarding disputes over shoals and islets.
dagul is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:39 PM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
This is very true. It's a shame that in Southeast Asia, my country ranks to be amongst the poorly armed and it's the reason China is bullying it regarding disputes over shoals and islets.
There are american military bases in the philippines. China is not doing it because the philippines is in a weak position.

If china bullied countries based on how weak their army is, burma would be a massive waste dump decades ago.

Both china and taiwan claim all of the south china sea based on well founded claims before any of the other claimaints were independent countries. The islands were claimed by the republic of china and surrendered, by japan to the republic of china after world war 2.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books

According to this the filipino claim is late and spurious. The republic of china (taiwan) occupied those islands before everyone else.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books

Vietnam acknowledged that the spratly and paracel islands belonged to china for over a thousand years during the vietnam war.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books
deke is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:24 PM   #39

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 5,810
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
In terms of the equipment of armies in 1914, the Russian was pretty well equipped. The army was better than the conventional wisdom says.

Quote:
During the first two years of the war, Russia had had some military successes, including notable victories over Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The demands of waging war drained the Russian economy and revealed the limitations of the Russian production and transportation systems. The human cost alone was substantial. Over the course of the entire war, Russia mobilized 12 million men, of whom some 1.7 million were killed and 4.9 million were wounded. This army was more a collection of men than an army in the modern sense. All the combatants in World War I suffered shortages and supply problems, but the Russian army was provided equipment, armaments, and supplies at especially low levels. It was not uncommon for Russian soldiers to be sent to the front without weapons, having been told to arm themselves with the rifles of the fallen. In 1915 one-third of the Russian infantry went into action without rifles. Munitions were seriously lacking. By April 1915 field artillery units could fire just two rounds per day. Many of these shortfalls were partly alleviated by imports from Britain and France, but their delivery had to come via Arkhangelsk and Murmansk in the remote north or Vladivostok on the even more distant Pacific. Because the British and French were experiencing shortages of their own, the supplies they sent to Russia never approximated the quality or quantities pledged, let alone what the Russians needed. In 1916 the Russian general staff estimated that fewer than half its orders for supplies from the Allies had been met. Some orders were filled with worn-out or obsolete equipment. American munitions and financing, which played a leading role in supplying Britain and France, were not made available to Russia.


Source: Russia's Provisional Government and World War I | - Imperial Russia | RUSSIA (TOPICS) | PORTALUS.RU&


Quote:
When I got out to Petrograd, in October, 1914, almost everyone believed General Sukhomlinoff to be a great "organiser of victory." I believe he shared that opinion himself. Yet we know now that the Army was utterly unprepared for war.

At the trial of Sukhomlinoff it was made clear that the scarcity of shells and rifles became disastrously apparent quite early in the war. Yet, when Gutchkoff, the able man of business, who might have saved Russia front the consequences of bureaucracy, came back from a visit to the front, boiling over with indignation and very seriously alarmed, a high official to whom he went said to him, "What can be done? The Tsar believes in Sukhomlinoff and will not hear a word against him."


Source: Hamilton Fyfe in Russia

Quote:
With war underway Sukhomlinov came under increasing fire as news of critical shortages of supplies and shells fed back from the Eastern Front. Nevertheless continuing to insist that the army was well supplied Sukhomlinov found himself politically isolated in the summer of 1915.
Discredited by military defeats on the Eastern Front and dogged by continuing stories of material shortages, the Tsar was eventually prevailed upon to dismiss Sukhomlinov in June 1915, replacing him with the rather more competent Polivanov

Source: First World War.com - Who's Who - Vladimir Sukhomlinov
Sukhomlinov effect indeed . Admittedly, supply shortages an communication problems improved under his successor; Polivanov, until he was dismissed himself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
Russia was of course not capable of sustaining large scale operations over long periods of time. But no one else expected a war that lasted for years either.
Maintaining communication lines were a big problem, but from what I know, the Russians only enacted a partial mobilisation initially, which meant the supply lines and effort were never going to be fruitful, initially.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 07:34 PM   #40

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,277

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
There are american military bases in the philippines. China is not doing it because the philippines is in a weak position.

If china bullied countries based on how weak their army is, burma would be a massive waste dump decades ago.

Both china and taiwan claim all of the south china sea based on well founded claims before any of the other claimaints were independent countries. The islands were claimed by the republic of china and surrendered, by japan to the republic of china after world war 2.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books

According to this the filipino claim is late and spurious. The republic of china (taiwan) occupied those islands before everyone else.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books

Vietnam acknowledged that the spratly and paracel islands belonged to china for over a thousand years during the vietnam war.

Vietnam Joins the World - James William Morley, Masashi Nishihara - Google Books
Just for your information, all the American military basis in the Philippines had been ejected in the country in 1991 on the basis of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that the country is a nuke free zone, thus, the Philippine Senate decreed that they should be removed from the country.

Regarding, the claims of the Philippines over those territories, I think that had been discussed in one of the threads here.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
army, equipped, worst


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The worst man in the history of the world. Lpspider General History 192 February 1st, 2013 09:49 AM
Italian army World war 2 sturm War and Military History 78 November 3rd, 2012 10:38 PM
Japanese Army in World War 2: Brainwashed or faithful? jeroenrottgering War and Military History 12 June 23rd, 2012 02:59 AM
U.S. army during World war 1 sturm American History 14 May 25th, 2012 02:36 AM
Best Army in the world, per man over the last 400 year. rory1497 War and Military History 39 May 13th, 2011 04:09 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.