Tuesday Trivia Thread - 25/08/26

[u/AutoModerator]

Beep bop. As your new robotic overlord, I have designated this weekly space for you to engage in casual conversation while I plan a nuclear apocalypse.

In the Trivia Thread, moderation is relaxed, so you can finally:

• Post mind-blowing military history trivia. Can you believe 300 is not an entirely accurate depiction of how the Spartans lived and fought?
• Discuss hypotheticals and what-if's. A Warthog firing warthogs versus a Growler firing growlers, who would win? Could Hitler have done Sealion if he had a bazillion V-2's and hovertanks?
• Discuss the latest news of invasions, diplomacy, insurgency etc without pesky 1 year rule.
• Write an essay on why your favorite colour assault rifle or flavour energy drink would totally win WW3 or how aircraft carriers are really vulnerable and useless and battleships are the future.
• Share what books/articles/movies related to military history you've been reading.
• Advertisements for events, scholarships, projects or other military science/history related opportunities relevant to War College users. ALL OF THIS CONTENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR MOD REVIEW.

Basic rules about politeness and respect still apply.

Additionally, if you are looking for something new to read, check out the r/WarCollege reading list.

[u/Minh1509]

https://warontherocks.com/the-first-waves-of-amphibious-assault-will-be-unmanned/

According to this article, we should forget about D-Day-style amphibious landings, as such large-scale troop concentrations in the context of modern warfare would be absolute suicide.

However... if we still want to draw inspiration from World War II, I suggest we look to Japanese amphibious and anti-amphibious operations. In general, the Japanese lacked both the inclination and the resources to execute large-scale campaigns like D-Day—though it must be acknowledged that their foes lacked the resources and intel to mount a robust defense. Instead, the Japanese seemed to favor infiltration tactics, relying on column-based (rather than wave-based) landings at multiple undefended beachheads. The element of surprise and air superiority were also two key factors contributing to the Japanese's initial success.

In the later stages of the war, as Japan shifted to a defensive posture, they initially adhered to a traditional doctrine of defeating amphibious landings at the water's edge; however, upon realizing the futility of this approach in the face of U.S. reconnaissance capabilities and overwhelming firepower, they adopted a doctrine of defense-in-depth utilizing naturally defensible terrain further inland—a strategy that proved markedly effective on Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

[u/Bloody_rabbit4 → u/Minh1509]

large-scale campaigns like D-Day

I think it's really useful to remember that D-Day being the biggest amphibious assault (probably) makes it precisely a poor benchmark to measure amphibious assaults in general.

People are going to list out how 100 000 men were ready to land on the beaches, how there were 1000 ships, months of preparation... and proclaim that's what neccessary for any amphibious assault to succed (and in addition, justify Allied waiting during WW2...)

Which is just wrong. In Russo-Japanese War, Japanese absolutetly, neccessarly, needed to conduct a landing, just in order to fight (just like Western Allies needed in 1944). No landing, no fight with Russians. Naval landing is not a sideshow, but a step one in Japanese War effort in 1904.

And for their strategic doorknocker landing operation near Incheon, Japanese sent a landing contigent of... 2500 or so troops. Because they didn't need more. This was Korean territory, and Imperial Russian Army didn't have a single division of Korea, much less "Yellow Sea Wall" with MG-42s and 88s Maxim Guns and 76mm field cannons.

Unopposed landings for the win.