Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3_14159]

I'd like to weigh in with a small 'What the hell?' upon reading the opinions of both Brood and Taricus. Please excuse my strong language, but again: What the hell?
You both are assuming that allowing military access (and not only military access, but military access with the explicit goal of attacking another country) wouldn't be seen as attack by the country giving military access.
To use the house example from before: Let's assume there are three people: A, B and C. You are A, B wants to kill you (everyone knows that). Now, you are safe inside your house, with your garden secure. Then, C allows B through his house and onto your ground with a knife. Know what I mean?
To look for parallels: During WW2, the Swiss was neutral. Both Germany and the Allies went through Swiss airspace. Both German and Allied planes were forced to land. Due to that, both Germany and the US threatened to attack/bomb the Swiss. See what I mean? Here, a neutral country did what it was allowed to (force planes to land inside its own airspace), and both the other powers didn't really like it. Now, imagine the same, but the Swiss'd let troops march through.

Ok I'll make it simple.

Cause : We attack through Capia but Capia does not attack.
Effect : Morovia attacks Capia for allowing passage
Effect : Capia attacks Morovia in retaliation.
Effect : Morovia is fighting twice as many men men now.

Please answer the following questions:
a) What does Capia have to gain from such a military transit right? Why should they allow us to do so?
b) If they do this, why wouldn't Capia see the same and NOT give us transit rights?
c) If that would be the case, why not station artillery in Capia and shoot into Morovia? (And yes, that is an exageration).

Again, sorry if that seems overly aggressive, but I am a bit irritated by the apparent lack of understanding of basic diplomatic concepts.

[10ebbor10]

Also, adding to that, Capia is a capitalistic country. Capitalist-Communist pacts tend not to work out that well. I'm certain that, when given the choice, they'll join up with Morovia rather then with us.

After all, the GM said that we're not well loved in the surroundings.

[Taricus]

I would like to point out the house scenario is a VERY poorly crafted strawman for this purpose, as it neglects the strategic value of controlled territory along with ignoring the effect of maneuver warfare.

If he's left his house, you go take it. He will not suspect you of hiding within his own home while he is searching yours. If that is not feasible, you prepare your home in advance for his arrival, since that conflict is inevitable, you make sure you have as much of an edge that you can possibly have in that scenario.

I'd also like to point out that Ukrainian (And the supporters of his plan, by extension) lack basic psychological knowledge, along with not knowing how to actually deal with a diplomatic situation at all.

And Ebbor: Maybe, but they don't like us PURELY on economic model, not political, which is a far cry from the differences between the allies and the soviet union. And while we may not be liked, all that means is we cannot afford ANY sort of political slip-up or faux-pas.

[10ebbor10]

A political system based on giving the people to the poor has a certain attraction to large amounts of the population. If they join with us, they risk strengthening the communist parties in their land. That might trigger a revolt.

There's a reason Real world communistic countries were deliberately isolated.

[Taricus]

True. However, it would still benefit our national image if we try diplomacy BEFORE charing in and smashing everything like a madman.

EDIT: And if anything, that makes our commando and infantry equipment higher priority. Trained revolutionaries with assault rifles up against a professional army that hasn't switched over to SMGs from bolt-action rifles as their primary firearm? We could take down several nations through that.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

3_14159 You know, I can't tell if they are serious or just trolling, especially Taracus' thing about going into house of the enemy "by maneuver warfare" while example is about a different situation
___________

I want too boost our anti-surface ship capabilities ( we are becoming too ASW focused) and plan to propose something along that lines:

100-150 ton armored powered turret with noticeable armor and twin 120mm guns. Guns are designed  for Naval use and thus optimized for that. Should have longer range and built in targeting made by our electric engineers. Also, they are not meant to be used in single version or by army. Only in this twin, preferably cast, turret for fleet and coastal defense (we need lighter coastal guns,
It should prioritize range, accuracy and AP over rate of fire, weight of the gun and size of warhead.
Also it shoul ba able to fire much more short ranged HE shells, and timing fuses

Why 120mm? It's a nice intermediate between 80mm and 160mm
It should serve as main armament for future destroyers, secondary armament for capital ships and notable boost for our coastal batteries.

Any thoughts?

[Taricus]

Completely serious. But I guess another point I'm making is that you are not looking into the future far enough.

Now, for the destoyers, I'd say we should eschew cannons for them entirely and focus on arming them with torpedoes, as this will allow them to puch far above their weight without needing to waste time designing and fitting expensive cannons onto them.

[Brood]

@ Pi.

A : They are in the middle, they know one side or the other will come in eventually so it's best for them to allow one before they get invaded, on land we win so it's best for them to allow us rather then force us to invade them.

B : See A, better to allow one and face the chance of an attack if we fail then refuse both and be attacked for sure.

C : We ain't cowards who hide from our enemy

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Taricus, I am looking into future, I want to spread the revolution and increase our own power... Conquest of Capia is required for that  as for great powers... You can't become Great power without fighting against another great power. Also, Isolationism doesn't make fun games
And how not looking into the future correlates with the fact that military access to the enemy of the county = declaring war to the said country?


As for torpedo only destroyer.... It  will be a sweet target for other, proper, destroyers.. On other hand in this world torpedoes are way too effective...
 

[Taricus]

Well, if we design a torpedo like the type 93, I don't think our ships will even be in gun range at all.. Mount up some decent AA and ASW weapons and the mounting destroyer would be a very effective weapon.

Also, I'm saying we cannot invade Capia at all, What I am saying is that any plans for such should be postponed until the molovian menace has been dealt with entirely. We cannot afford to overstretch our might at this moment, especially while we're reeling from the merchant raiding.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am absolutely  sure that defeating both Morovia and Capia in a proper land war way easier than defeating Morovia via Amphibious assault. You need 10 to 1 advantage to do that kind of stuff and still suffer huge losses

There are only three options to win war against Morovia
1) Easiest : Make Capia join us in a war : doubt that this will ever happen
2) Attack Capia and go to Morovia
3) Attack Morovia from sea = DAMN HARD


As for type93 like torpedo and while it did had huge max range, in practice it was fired from close range for much better chances to hit. What made it dangerous is great speed in conjunction with huge warhead

[Taricus]

It's standard firing range still outranges the US's version by around a 2:1 margin in the IJN's favour. Considering that's 10 kilometres difference between the two, it's a very big difference.

As for an amphibious assault, It can be done effectively. It would require a lot of misdirection and sabotage in the lead up to it, but it can certainly be done.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You mean 20km. That's not what I mean by practical range...

But I am more interested in sabotage and misdirection that would allow to do amphibious landing.

[10ebbor10]

Airship, gliders, ....

[Taricus]

Simply put, if the enemy thinks we'll land somewhere, and then we land our troops at a different location altogether we'd avoid a lot of the losses from such an operation.

Airships aren't practical for this sort of thing, due to their visibility and speed.