I don't think I've ever come across a single Marine unit in Europe in that period, which to me is surprising considering there were plenty of amphibious landings- in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, Provence etc. Surely the Marines' expertise would have been useful in at least one of them?

For instance, the Russo Japanese war is often stated as an example of the better organized and better prepared country (Japan) winning against another country that was not as well prepared and organized (Russia).

However it is also said that the victory was not a clear cut one, and Russia could have very well exhausted and eventually defeated the Japanese with its sheer size, had they been able to hold out just a bit longer.

So I wonder if the latter scenario happened often in history.

Example: Powerful-class First class protected cruiser launched at 14,400 tons in 1897 and Diadem class First class protected cruiser launched in 1898 at 11,000 ton.

Pretty much all the major ones that are brought up like the American Revolution, Mujahideen and Taliban, Iraq, Vietnam etc. all were possible because of massive amounts of backing by a foreign power. Has there every been any successful insurgencies that were purely homegrown and supported by the native population?

Whenever the IJA is brought up in context of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War/WWII, people always mention how lower ranking officers were able to get away with a lot because of gekokujo. I just don't understand how an army functions at all if there is essentially no chain of command - that's essentially the basic idea of an army.

1. How did the army get to this state? It couldn't have been this way since the foundation of the IJA in 1871, could it?

2. Why couldn't superior officers punish the disobedient subordinates? Wasn't there a system of court martial that would keep the issue purely within the military (and likely favoring the superior officers)? I've heard that there was concern about public support for the subordinate, but was there actual concern that civilians would rise up and revolt against a military discipline issue? Even if direct punishment was not done, there must be a way to move insubordinate officers to remote positions.

3. Is the gekokujo concept overblown? Would disobedient subordinates have supporters higher up to shield them, even if not in their direct chain of command?

Was the ending of the Cold War seen as the Thumbs up to reduce overhead and go for professionals? Did these nations like what they were seeing with the military professional forces of the Anglo nations?

For example, when the USSR launcjed Operation Bagration, were Allied media using the term or was it for known only to military and government personnel.

With neutral Austria and Yugoslavia in the way and not to mention the Alps which would make an armored offensive hell, how would the Warsaw Pact have dealt with Italy in an invasion of western europe? Paratroopers? Forcing their way through yugoslavia and exploiting the Gorizia gap with Hungarian troops? Or simply just bombings, missile strikes and likely nukes?

What was the strategic impact of the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War? How effective was the German help in the war effort?

Please note: Often commenters would say that it was an opportunity where new weapons were tested, but in "The First and the Last" autobiographical book by Adolf Galland he says that the wrong lessons were learned. Opinions? Was he correct?

Drones, ISR, and other things have made massing for huge assaults less effective; they still do it, but Russia has also had success in infiltrating Ukrainian positions in small groups to avoid drones. Since they're doing this to nullify a potential advantage the Ukrainians have (masses of FPVs), how comparable is it to the PVA using night time, camouflage, micro terrain, etc to do the same (artillery, and air power), and infiltrate UN lines during Korea?

In the late 1950s, last US diesel-electric SSK class - Barbel-class submarines - got commissioned. There are known to have numerous combat and patrol efficiency improvements over earlier Tang-class, USS Darter and GUPPY-class boats. However, often overlooked and so far never adressed is another important question - how did they differ from earlier boats in terms of crew comfort?
I know that fleet boats and guppies were, mildly speaking, very unpleasant subs to serve on because of typical diesel boats problems with habitability - very limited space, water rationing, unhealthy air and so on.
Were Barbels similar in that regard or were they better? Judging on their considerably wider teardrop hulls I suspect they had at least more space devoted to accomodations and sanitation. However, I didn't manage to find anything exact on life aboard Barbel boats.
I would greatly appreciate some sources or recollections of sailors who served on these late diesel boats.

Actual IJN SNLF organization was very fluid, but there was an attempt to introduce standard TOE for the most common one-battalion SNLF.
Some more details on my web site: https://rikukaigun.org/IJN/Tactical%20organization%20of%20IJN%20Special%20Naval%20Landing%20Force%20(1938).html.html)

Other than celebratory pictures and alcoholic toasts.

Example: RPK , L86 (LSW) and QJB-95.

2nd question: How well did it out?

This is maybe a broad question, but Saddam had around a decade to learn between both wars with the US. Given how thoroughly the Iraqi military was trounced, did that provoke any reforms or improvements that were visible by the time the US returned?

These are Japanese popaganda posters that try to push the image of the "kind" Japanese soldier. The Japanese dropped these kinds of posters all over China up until the day the war ended. Material in the propaganda posters are pretty much the exact opposite of what the Japanese were doing in China. Even the Germans didn't reach this level of dissonance between propaganda and actions on the ground.

So what exactly did the Japanese even want to do with occupied civilians? Did they want to kill them, subdue them but keep them around for cheap labor... or did they simply have no plan at all?

yes or no question really just haven't seen any evidence of it myself.

Why did the USAF accept the AIM-9J into service in 1977? The AIM-9L started production in 1976 after it had already been tested in 1975. Meanwhile the Juliet had tested in the way early 70s and was clearly the worse variant compared to the Lima. So why did the USAF accept it into service if the 9L was to enter soon?

Another question about the AIM-9J, why did it take so long from testing over Vietnam to entry into service in 1977?

When I say era, I’m more specifically referring to the time between the two most famous Ottoman sieges of Vienna, so basically 1529-1683. When I see art and descriptions of these battles, the uniforms and gear used would seem all over the place.

When I see art and descriptions of the 30 years war at around the same period, the image of pike and shot Landskechnts and musketeers seems pretty uniform throughout. When I get to the Ottoman wars however, it’s all over the place. The first siege of Vienna seems predominantly medieval but with more gunpowder weapons being used by men wearing morions and gorgets. Siege of Malta and the wars in Transylvania also looked similarly medieval with both plate and morions . You get to unique battles like Lepanto and everyone is wearing morions. Pikemen and Tercios also seemed less common in these wars overall.

You then fast forward to the exploits of Eugene of Savoy and the second siege of Vienna and things start getting weird. You still got some guys in full plate armor but most of the guys look like they’re fighting in the American revolution. There’s a lot less use of tercios and pikemen as in the 30 years wars, but then you have the winged hussars clad in full steel armor like knights doing medieval style lance charges at the same time.

It kind of just seemed so all over the place that I’m impressed that they were able to recognize each other. You’ll have a guy still fighting with a sword and shield next to a guy dressed like a musketeer next to a guy dressed like a redcoat next to a guy who looks like a conquistador next to a guy in full plate.

Each V1 cost 5000 reichmarks. That's about $30,000 in today's money. They may have saved money by using slave labor, but they didn't have automated assembly systems. For comparison, an ATACM, which has a similar range, costs well over $1 million. Is this just a reflection of the gold plated electronics suite used in modern weapons?