Timeline for How can Mars compete with Earth economically or militarily?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27 at 8:18 | comment | added | AcePL | I've changed my mind and marked the answer as accepted due to an in-universe explanation. As long as author is aware of that massive disproportion between Mars and Earth, this is barely enough. I do stand by my comments that it's factually and technically wrong on every possible level, though. It seems that research is not as exhaustive in some cases as it is in others. But I guess it's not the factor that generates success... | |
| Aug 27 at 7:45 | vote | accept | AcePL | ||
| Nov 4, 2022 at 12:17 | comment | added | AcePL | @Yasskier - at the risk of flame war continued, I will say T-34 was way worse than Tiger. Especially every version prior to 85mm. It wasn't Tiger's fault it was not used in the role it was designed to. Compare T-34 to Panther and it's better choice (though the latter was overly complicated, too). The main point I have is that loss ratio is not useful, because Soviet tanks were crap quality so most losses were engineering casualties, not kills (which means Ger/Sov kill ratio was higher than loss ratio). | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 19:45 | history | edited | Yasskier | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 431 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2022 at 19:38 | comment | added | Yasskier | @AndrewHenle I can see that this discussion has totally diverged in the wrong direction. Just to add one more comment then: Yes, T-34 was overall a better tank than for example overly complicated Tiger, but all in all, the loss ratio of tanks was about 1 German for every 4 Russian, (1:7 in1941) which is what Epstein says in the quote above en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#Land | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 17:45 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | And ME-262s? In service in July 1944. US P-80s? In combat in Feb 1945, only 7 months later. ME-262 max speed? 900 kph. P-80? 950 kph. ME-262 combat radius? 1,000 km (if the engines lasted that long...) P-80? 1,200 km. Re the ME-262 jet engines: "the aircraft completed eight flights, lasting four hours and forty minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings." That's what? A 2-hour engine lifetime? | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 17:00 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | @AcePL Now talk to me about B-29s and nuclear weapons, both of which - unlike the V-1 and V-2 - were actually effective combat weapons. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 16:56 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | @AcePL So, if the German's fuel technology were the equal of the Allies? Heck, I didn't even mention the Germans were behind in that. Nevermind the fact that the US planes were able to carry all that extra fuel weight and still fight the German planes on equal terms. Do you really think "better fuel" is all that it would take to raise the FW-190's 400 km combat radius all the way up to the P-51's 1200 km combat radius? Heck, the P-51 was originally built for the Brits as a ground-support fighter/bomber and it still could fly 500 km, fight FW-190s equally, then fly back. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 16:01 | comment | added | AcePL | @AndrewHenle - British "invented" jet engine first, Then Spain and then Germans, who actually "just" built first true jet plane... Germans had V-1 and V-2, which were truly pioneering designs. Early T-34 was inferior to Panzer III and IV in quality and reliability, though much better design. German planes didn't have to fly far, so they had less range and were slower because IIIR had no good aviation fuel. Had they had same as US, their planes would be at least equal to P-39/47/51. So don't be so quick in putting down words... | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 14:43 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @AndrewHenle Sure, I understand that. But the examples don't seem to invalidate the general point that military governments can lead to a superior military, since they were government projects. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 14:28 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | @Peter-ReinstateMonica I was commenting on the "Germany had better scientists and technology" trope. As AcePL noted - that's soooo wrong. Like I said: "They had rockets. No one had rockets, but they did." So what? The Brits developed radar. The US had nuclear weapons. Those pretty much unequivocally put the lie to "Germany had better technology and scientists." | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 13:45 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @AndrewHenle Of course there are things to be said about the efficiency of bureaucracies, but these two examples are not among them ;-). | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 13:42 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @AndrewHenle I was at first not sure whether to read your post as sarkasm because the Manhattan project and the U.K. anti-crypto efforts are prime examples for the power of war-time government efforts, so they support the argument that a military technocracy (which would essentially run the entire country the way these projects were run) could result in an effective military. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 10:34 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | (cont) Germans had rockets?!?!?! BFD. US had NUKES. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 10:32 | comment | added | Andrew Henle | @AcePL Well, the quote would work as in-world explanation, but it's factually incorrect in almost every point. Indeed. Radar, Bletchley Park, and the Manhattan Project all argue otherwise regarding just the scientists. Technology? Germany had better tanks?!?! Hah. T-34 anyone? The Panther was a piece of junk that was broken down half the time - literally. Aircraft? The P-51 could fly from the UK to Berlin, fight FW-190s and BF-109s on at least equal terms, then fly back to the UK. B-17/B-24/B-29? Germans had NOTHING like those. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 8:02 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @Yasskier Yes, the slavery does not fit, but much else does. We also consider Athens the cradle of democracy (the word is from there, after all), in spite of that... | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 23:45 | comment | added | Yasskier | @Peter-ReinstateMonica I'm not so sure if it is a great comparison: Sparta was a slavering country with about 7 Helots (basically slaves) for each Spartan. Mars is built on the respect for the military tradition and the "sacrifice for the nation" but it has no exploited population - it seems that even those on the social bottom are relatively well-off. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 21:05 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | The last "How Mars has achieved this advantage" part is key: Earth is a decadent, discordant, corrupt place that has taken the wrong turn somewhere. They can hardly feed their population. Mars, by contrast, is Sparta. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 8:33 | comment | added | AcePL | @Yasskier - Starship Troopers is not a good example, I think. Unless you're talking about what I think, then yes, I agree. I will think about your answer. Stand by my comment about the comment, though - riddled with errors, hard to reconcile with what's in my head. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 19:26 | history | edited | Yasskier | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 16:49 | comment | added | GuilleOjeda | Consider that Mars, not Earth, produced one Winston Duarte. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 3:37 | comment | added | Yasskier | @AcePL I'm not sure is that such an oxymoron - a working example was better explained in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. But the base idea has a chance to work here, since your work is responsible (quite literally) for a lot of lives, and from a young age you are taught about sense of duty and chain of command. The emigration caused by the Ring has doomed Mars, since they were lacking enough workers - people were leaving, because they had other option than doing what they were told to. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 0:52 | comment | added | AcePL | Well, the quote would work as in-world explanation, but it's factually incorrect in almost every point. As far as efficient militarised technocracy - this is an oxymoron. Might as well put communism in there and you'd not miss much. It could work on small scale, but. at some point the management layer would be bigger than production... Maybe it would work in-world, but not plausible in any other scenario. | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 22:54 | history | answered | Yasskier | CC BY-SA 4.0 |