/k/ - Weapons

>>682827

>>682829

>>682826

you can read more information form the book titled "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918" which was published in English as ""Germany's Aims in the First World War." by German historian Fritz Fischer this book was some what controversial im Germany

now these were the official goals of each empire but what would have happened next in this world thats really not something we can predict also there were plans to give British and french colonies (South,Africa,Indochina,Canada,Australia,Afghanistan the British Raj) their Independence

>>682804

>And if the Central Powers managed to somehow win, wouldn't (((they))) be apt to choose Germany as their primary European base of Operations for enacting their subversive master plans?

In a sense this was the question shortly after the crimean war. Jew empire in central europe vs England, england had the banks and shipping lanes/maritime empire already so we know how that went.

>>682829

>The Croats, Bosnians, and Slovenes all wanted more autonomy and independent will in the Empire and right out of Hungary would come suppression and oppression to keep them down.

u wot m8

Modern day Slovenia was mostly part of Austria, there is just a small strip of land that was part of Hungary. And Bosnia was an entity that had nothing to do with Hungary. In the case of Croatia, they were under Hungary in a legal sense, but they were still quite free internally, with their own parliament and laws. Their dream was basically to get on our level and transform the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy into the Austro-Hungaro-Croatian Monarchy.

Dumb question, but for the life of me I can't figure out why all sides on the Western front kept initiating attacks when time and again they gained nothing from them and suffered huge losses.

They had to know the massive disparity between offensive and defensive capabilities during the war, so why not just invest all on defense and let the enemy bleed trying to smash through your trenches?

>>682840

Dogmatic, stubborn generals insisting on fighting wars as they were prior to WW1. Keep in mind that at the beginning of the war the French were still wearing bright, blue uniforms and thought firing lines were an effective strategy against mounted machine guns.

>>682840

Germans largely didn't and even initiated a strategy to bleed out France.

France had too as Germany was occupying a good chunk of it.

Protip: if you sue for peace when the enemy is camping within artillery range of your capital, typically it means you lost…

>>682847

Bismark was fucking dead by WW1 you dumbass.

>>682849

iirc Japan just dicked around in China and some German territories near China.

>>682851

That I know, what I'm asking is what could have happened if the war had been prolonged.

>>682838

>Austro-Hungaro-Croatian Monarchy

Austro-Hungaro-Croato-Czech monarchy :^)

Really, though, estabilishment of Austria-Hungary pissed Czechs off to an extreme level. Up until then the mainstream thought was "we should remain in the empire, but gain more autonomy, move towards a federation". After A-H became a thing, the new mainstream was "Austrians are unwilling to compromise. Total independence is our only option." It was similar in other parts of the empire. Victory in the Great War wouldn't have fixed these issues – it'd just delay the inevitable.

>>682863

This. The only way A-H could had work is through further decentralization. The Austrians and the Hungarians should had made agreements with the Croats and the Czechs exactly like the the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and turn the empire into A-H-C-C/"Great Danubia". I'm still more inclined to say that Prussia should had just invade the German parts of Austria after the battle of Königgrätz and let Hungary and Czechia become independent, but that deserves an entirely new discussion.

>>682834

>Eternal Anglo complains about honor

never change, America, never change

>>682863

A squadron of hussars charging into a crowd of uppity peasants always fixes such issues.

>>682864

> Just that tying up the whole eurosphere under German leadership (without war) was something he would have been all over

Wouldn't you?

>>682874

It would've been under the leadership of a low functioning autist roachlover and his Junker retainers.

>>682804

Everyone knows that the schlieffen plan lost germany the war, von moltke the younger let it get all fucked up.

>>682847

>Sounds like Bismarck would be a fan of Merkel

why would he be a fan of a polish jews who's the rothschild's local slavemaster?

>>682878

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-10-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-first-world-war-1570327966

>2. "The Germans invaded Belgium and France using the Schlieffen Plan"

>Instead, it would be more accurate to say they used the Schlieffen-Moltke plan, or just the Moltke Plan.

How would the Russian Republic have dieded if Wilhelm II. hadn't sent Lenin over?

Would Trotsky have assumed control much to the chagrin of leftypol?

>>682884

Because she succeeded where wilhelm and adolf failed. although it looks like spearheading all the import of second-hand ottomans is going to blow up in her face

>>682896

I don't Bismark's and Hitler's goal was to genocide ethnic Germans.

>>682903

Bismark probably wouldn't stand for it, but it does seem to be the end result of Hitler's efforts.

>>682896

>>682912

>mutts being retarded again

In WW1, Germany has about 100.000 yids.

Yids flock to Germany AFTER WW1.

>>682918

It was time to feed on the wounded Eagle. Just like how hohols now have a "comedian" kile for a president.

>>682896

>Because she succeeded where wilhelm and adolf failed.

how so?

>>682896

> although it looks like spearheading all the import of second-hand ottomans is going to blow up in her face

which was forced on germany in the 60's by it's jewish-american masters

>>682903

>I don't Bismark's and Hitler's goal was to genocide ethnic Germans.

have you gone full retard mali kurvin sin, jesili glupan

>>682888

>How would the Russian Republic have dieded if Wilhelm II. hadn't sent Lenin over?

The Russian bolshevist jews were largely paid by the American-Jewish bankers, the gold Germany sent with Lenin was only a very small part of the overall wealth the judeo-bolshevists got.

>>682928

Lenin was a Chaos Champion. Obviously only lenin could have stirred the shitpot that was 1919 Russia and not thousands of others.

>>682885

>>682889

Semantics, the point is that moltke's butchering of schlieffen's plan was what caused the war to go in the direction that it did

>>682929

Nope, some other kike would have taken his place.

>>682931

That and the little fact that the usa supported britain and france with gigantic material support and credits to buy these war materials. which is the real reason why the usa joined the war, so the jewish bankers didn't lose their repayment of the credits in a case of german victory.

>>682932

>>682932

>autismus

>sarcasmus

>>682804

>what went wrong

Having the highest Jewish (read: Polish) population in Europe

>>682995

>canadians

The germans were building a railroad to turkey, this was the equivalent of a new silk road and the kikes running standard oil which was the monopoly of the day were not only threatened but faced collapse had that new route of commerce be completed. So they jewed up some excuses and blamed all of Germany.

>>687664

Nowever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

>>682929

This. Germany could have sent a revolutionary of any political persuasion to Moscow and some kind of revolution would have happened pretty quickly.

>>687664

>Free as in freedom energy when?

As soon as you can find a way to make the project profitable enough to the right people.

>>687664

>Free as in freedom energy when?

The freedom to use the energy as you wish, for any purpose.

The freedom to study how the energy is produced, and change the method so it does your conversion as you wish. Access to the blue prints and physical background documentation is a precondition for this.

The freedom to distribute your power so you can help your neighbor.

The freedom to distribute stored forms of your converted energy to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your conversion method and energy storage solutions. Access to the physical background documentation is a precondition for this.

>>687664

>>687670

Try one better

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_carbonization

Chuck some dead leaves, water, and a lemon into a pressure cooker, 10 bar, 180 C, and 12 hours later you have a pressure cooker full of low-quality brown coal mixed with water.

Basically no infrastructure requirements so long as you have a pressure vessel that can safely take it. Do it at home and post results.

>somebody bumped the thread

Finally I have an excuse to post

WILLY DID NOTHING WRONG

>>682840

Basically, political considerations. Russia gets their second army destroyed and calls out for help. France and UK can't really do anything, they're on the wrong side of Europe, but don't want to sit around like a pack of assholes either. So, they half-bake a plan (if you could be so generous to call it that) with the goal of 'diverting the enemy's resources' and get minor successes at unacceptable losses without actually helping. Then it happens again to the French in the battle of Verdun; the other allies are pressured to make premature offensives in an attempt to divert resources or reserves that never actually are diverted, when they should have been marshaling strength and properly planning an offensive. French troops begin to mutiny? British launch the third battle of Ypres to raise morale.

Eventually you got commonwealth, and later, American (Pershing was called the most stubborn man in Europe), officers who were less susceptible to this and more willing to innovate rather than rely on magical thinking, which was also a big problem.

>>682847

> the art defense (big ass fortresses with modern repeating mounted guns using overlapping fields of fire) was useless

Except for the bit where all decisive battles indeed saw 18th century fortresses playing a key role.

Strategically their role was null as indeed heavy artillery could deal with them easily, but tactically it was still a gigantic pain in the butt that led to the systematic stalling of German offensives, the Germans would advance, stumble upon an "old but good" fortress (Vauban-designed fortress are designed with overlapping fire angles for 300m range for rifles, 2000m for guns emplacements. A fortress being in fact a complex of fortified gun positions and not a single place. The man was a military genius that had completely anticipated the evolution of artillery and guns for centuries. AFAIK none of them fell in combat until WWI. And even then the way the buildings were designed proved to provide really good cover for anything but the largest shells) so they had to wait for their heavy gun support. Meanwhile the entente would reorganize and counter-attack en force, forcing the now exhausted and low on supply Germans back too far so the scarce heavy guns couldn't be risked to be too close.

Rince-repeat.

WWI is a terrible war were all the basis of maneuver warfare are there… except the real mobility of the forces is actually dreadful, until the Russian and the Allied army of Orient managed two gigantic cavalry (as in horseback cavalry) assaults that virtually wipe-out Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces, forcing Germany to call it quits. Because horses had proper sustainable mobility.

People think that mechanized warfare won WWI… when every major offensive with tanks against Germany were actually repelled for the exact same reason old fortresses were still useful, tank offensives worked on a strategical level but they fizzled out all the same due to a lack of support on the tactical level due to their dreadful mobility.

But if you tell people that horses won WWI you sound like a nutjob.

>>687920

Would fortresses still work in this day and age, or would the enemy just cruise missile them into oblivion? I mean, you could try to put so much AA on them that the would run out of missiles before the fortress runs out of ammunition, but I have the doubts about that.

>until the Russian and the Allied army of Orient managed two gigantic cavalry (as in horseback cavalry) assaults that virtually wipe-out Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces, forcing Germany to call it quits

Which were these two offensives?

>>687934

Vardar Offensive is the second one, the first I think is Bruselov's Offensive where Cossacks did as they do best.

>>687934

>Would fortresses still work in this day and age, or would the enemy just cruise missile them into oblivion?

Who are you planning on fighting from this fortress? If it's the Americans, Russians, any other 1st rate army, then you're going to get either cruise missiles, air strikes, or artillery falling on you until you either surrender or can't defend the position any more. Against insurgents or the like they'd probably do relatively well (although there have been several cases of insurgents/terrorists developing bargain basement artillery kit by now) but they'd probably cost much more than they were worth in that scenario. Especially if you have to start filling it with high end AA with a large stockpile of ammo.

>>682826

Sounds like you're quoting the Treaty of Versailles but with France swapped with Germany

>>688334

No matter who would've won, it would have given harsh terms, so a reverse versailles is to be expected

>>688366

These are the kind of posts that make me come back here

>>688366

> denying the enemy a specific strategic area

Then you need to consider what actually is a strategic area in modern times.

Because most of those are going to be cities, doubly so if modern fortresses need to be city-sized to start with, and the cities are strategic because they create wealth.

Wealth that isn't going to be there after you've used them as a fortress. Your Grozny theory only works in shithole countries to start with because they have nothing to lose. If you tried doing that with, say, New York, you'd ruin what makes the city a strategic point in the first place in the first couple hours of battle. You'd only deny the wealth to the enemy too, but you could get the same result by just blowing up the city and calling it a plot by enemy saboteurs.

There's a reason why we stopped fortifying cities.

>>688380

>you need to consider what actually is a strategic area in modern times

Ports, factories and, of course, cities.

>If you tried doing that with, say, New York, you'd ruin what makes the city a strategic point in the first place

New York, just like most western cities, has disgusting modern nu-architecture. Blowing it up would be a good thing. The only thing that makes cities strategic is their ability to protect your troops in underground basements and slaughter the enemy if he dares enter. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

>>688381

You don't fight wars for the fun of it. Economic resources are vital even before considering the fact that somebody has to pay for all that equipment and ammunition.

>>687920

You're thinking of Séré de Rivières and Brialmont, the last Vauban forts were deactivated around the 1880s.

>>687934

Traditional walled forts are obsolete, but something like a modern-day Maginot Line would probably be really effective if the terrain allows for it. If nothing else they'd slow down the enemy's initial advance by a few days, which gives the defenders some much-needed time to prepare.