 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
This thing exist only as concept art |
true, but the basic technology all exists... it merely must be improved, integrated, and most importantly, produced more cheaply. It will be sometime before all this happens...
quote:
Ok, educate me what the heck is OICW? |
tired... need sleep... might explain tomorrow, for now here:
Information on OICW
it is a big deal ( i know no one else who can use the *roll eyes* smilie as effective, tho superfluous, as yourself)
quote:
Already have them, more probably you've stole it from us. |
perhaps. but like most US equipment, our guided shells will have superior range, accuracy, and effectiveness in general
quote:
Really? No kidding? 10*6*15*50=5400 Km per hour? Faster then planes?
At this moment the fastest torpedo is Russian "Shkval" which travels at speeds 300 Km per hour. Pentagon wasted years to stole it and create something eqaul, since "Shkval" was created in 80s. Last attempt was not so long ago, when mr. Pope was trying to steal blueprints of this weapon. Now you claims that you have ten times faster torpedo. Where did you get it? How it works?
|
hmm... you sound skeptical.
yes, i know all about 'shkval', it can travel 200 mph, and was rumored to be aboard the kursk when it sank...
and the reason why the torpedo goes so fast: gas is emitted through a nozel at the tip, this gas forms water vapor that effectively incases the torpedo in a bubble. This 'bubble' allows the torpedo to travel thru the water with virtually no drag. Combined with a rocket engine, the torpedo can travel as fast as a...err... rocket . This expalins why it can travel faster than jets. It is only theoretical presently, but researches at the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center have already launched an experimental supercavitating torpedo that broke the sound-barrier.
quote:
At current moment the largest battleship is Russian Peter the Great of "Kirov" class. I doubt that on distances about 500 miles accuracy of rail guns could be somewhere near the accuracy of Peter the Great missiles. |
well, this is the problem currently with developing rail guns. We would probably already have them if it werent for this. They are trying to develope guided munitions for them, in order to make them effective, but these are more 'fragile' than the standard 'hard shells' and have a very hard time surviving the hyper-velocity launch speeds (the friction produced at these speeds often melt the projectile, welding it to the inside of the bore). Once conquered however, rest assured they will be equally effective, and much, much cheaper than your missiles.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
We were talking about butt kicking, remember? |
Oh, well, in that case, the only similar experience to the falling apart of the Soviet Union was the US Civil War. And I don't recall the CSA winning.
quote:
There are no invincible countries, armies as well as kickboxers for example. Sooner or later some one will kick your as$ on the ring and later this guy will be beaten by next guy and so on. Thinking that you are invincible is really stupid. When you think so, you start to understimate your enemy which is damn big mistake. Such thinking leads only to much sooner defeat. |
No one's saying the US is invincible forever. We're just saying the US is invincible for today and the forseeable future.
quote:
Ground, sea, air, big difference- just don't fight there that's the meaning |
Yes, because the US would have loads of trouble winning any naval war against an Asian country  Hell, the USN would beat every Asian navy - including the Russian navy - combined, and everyone knows that.
quote:
Well, if we are talking about REAL wars, then our last real war was Great patriotic war (you call it WW2). |
Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own.
quote:
btw, when was the last time when USA won a war without Russian help? |
Persian Gulf, to start with.
quote:
And in general, when was the last time USA won a war ALONE? |
Panama and Grenada come to mind.
quote:
This list is too long. Wars vs. Hitler, |
Laughable. You didn't beat Hitler by yourself, you needed virtually the rest of the world's help.
This was non-assisted? For starters, the Russian Winter is what beat Napoleon - not the non-existence Russian victory at Borodino.
And never mind the fact that the Peninsular War tied up over 300,000 French troops at the same time. Never mind the fact that it was the British and Dutch and Prussians who won at Waterloo, not the Russians.
Eventually they got kicked out, although not before conquering and plundering Russia as it existed at the time. Hardly a brilliant victory, and hardly unassisted by other factors, such as Mongol internal politics.
You mean like in the Crimean War? Good job winning that one  
You never beat the Swedes until Poltava. Gustavus Adolphus kicked the **** out of Russia in his day. And Russia damn well better have won, considering their huge numerical superiority. In fact, as I recall, that's all Russia has ever relied on to win battles - numerical superiority. Hardly a brilliant strategy - hell, my cat could figure that one out
So you beat the Poles in the 1920s?
If you are referring to the Polish Partition, you might recall that this was by no means an unassisted victory.
quote:
Oh...and also intervention of 14 foreign countries (including your own) during Russian civil war after Boltshevick's revolution etc. |
Oh bollocks. If the US, Britain, France, etc., had actually committed to a full scale war, Russia - oh excuse me the Soviet Union - would have gotten its ass kicked, unless you are trying to argue that it was stronger in the middle of a civil war, after huge losses in WW1, than it was before and during the time when Germany by itself was whipping the **** out of it with less than half of its army.
Yes, space-based weapons are totally irrelevant
quote:
At current moment the largest battleship is Russian Peter the Great of "Kirov" class. |
You have two of those that are (semi) active, with no money to procure more or even adequately maintain and exercise the two you have. If that's the best you have, I'm not worried - those'll get beat by US naval aviation, anti-ship missiles, and submarines operating together.
quote:
Anyhow, we weren't beaten there. |
Fine, then the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam either. The US Army won every major battle, including and especially the Tet Offensive.
quote:
At the same scale as you needed our help to defeat Japan Ipmerial Army. |
The Japanese Imperial Army was irrelevant to the final defeat of Japan. Not only that, but the portion you fought was the Kwangtung Army, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.
Your victory in Manchuria in no way affected the US victories against Japan, which are what decided the war. Those millions of Japanese troops in China, Manchuria, and Korea were irrelevant because they could not be transported back to Japan.
And in any case, the Soviet Union would NOT have defeated Germany on its own. This is not only due to Lend Lease, but also largely due to the fact that by 1944 over a million Germans were tied down in anti-aircraft duties in the West, over a million German troops were in Italy and the Balkans, over 400,000 were in Norway, and 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500+ tanks - were in France, along with over 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength. If Germany had been able to throw over 2 million additional troops, 2000 additional tanks, a couple thousand additional fighters, and vast numbers of 88s onto the Eastern Front, do you really think that the Soviets would have made anything close to the gains they did? I certainly don't, and in fact, I rather expect that the front would have largely stabilized, and the Germans might even have regained some ground.
The longer the war went on, the SU's rail transportation system became more and more taxed - by 1945 it was at a breaking point, EVEN WITH Lend Lease, which accounted for well over 85% of both new rail tracks and rolling stock. Extend the war a couple more years and take away Lend Lease, and suddenly the Red Army has to march from north to south and east to west, not take the trains. Germany would have had no such problems, given the fact that the US/Britain strategic bombing war would not have been taking place, and the fact that the SU had no capability to launch such a campaign.
German production would have been even higher, and as the war went on Germany would have been able to better exploit the industrial potential of the areas they had conquered. Further, without having to fight Britain and the US, there would have been no embargo (and, by the way, no need to divert massive resources to the U-Boat campaign). This means that Germany would have had access to the world market for oil and rubber, among other things, such as the international money market and credit system. German national wealth was certainly greater than that of the Soviet Union, which would have translated into a much better ability to finance a long war.
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have been much worse off than they were historically, because of a lack of the major advantages they possessed in a coalition-type war, and the influx of billions of dollars worth of free equipment, food, supplies, etc.
Really, saying that the SU would have beaten Nazi Germany on its own is incredibly silly.
quote:
I don't remember a single case when America engaged in war vs. real competitor. |
The US certainly had the balls to fight the British Empire in 1812, for example, and to fight an undeclared naval war against the French in the early 1800s. Those contests were certainly not even, by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If China wants to put fixed wing ASW aircraft over the Straits of Taiwan, they'll be shot down. |
You are again assuming the US has air superiority, which really is the question.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If the PLAN sorties with ASW ships, 688is are more than capable of defeating those warships. China does not have enough ASW-capable warships to set up a wide enough net, anyway. |
There isn't such a need. Either your subs attack or they don't. If they attack, they can only go so far.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Are you seriously making the claim that the PLAN could defeat the USN in the Straits of Taiwan? |
Depending on how much you deploy. In any realistic scenario, yes. The US will not be risking much if at all of naval assets.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, air based radar - the E3A Sentry and the E2C Hawkeye, for starters. Secondly, this assumes that the US would NOT deploy any sort of theater missile defense. I see no reason this would be the case. |
First of all, no Hawkeyes, because you agreed that there wouldn't be any carriers. Where will be the E3As coming from? Japan? If they get close enough to be of use, they will be outside protection range of any missile defenses the US can deploy in Japanese bases.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and US standoff cruise missiles can target Chinese radar sites from behind Taiwan. |
That's why the S-300's can be so useful.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
And in any case, the F-22 and F-15 are able to easily outperform ANYTHING the Chinese can put in the air, just on the basis of paper performance alone. When you put training, equipment, maintenance, experience, leadership, etc., into the mix, the USAF is FAR superior to the PLAAF. |
I am assuming US-only assets. There are 3 USAF bases in Japan and 1 in ROK. Say, 8 fighter squardons? That's not a whole lot really.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The Mainstay is not the equal of the E-3. |
Sure, but the advantage of proximity is huge.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
US AWACS aircraft operating off carriers and land-based airfields, if it comes down to it. Those aircraft are pretty much invulnerable to the PLAAF, unless you think a PLAAF fighter sweep could get past the Taiwan Straits, over Taiwan, through Taiwanese and US fighter defenses, and be able to find and shoot down these AWACS planes. But I'm not worried - the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have been able to do this over Europe, so why would you think the much inferior PLAAF could? |
You aren't paying attention.
1. None of them will have the same kind of fighter protection it would have over Europe.
2. Operating beyond Taiwan renders them quite useless, and it's doubtful that have the effective coverage.
3. Consider any and all airbases in Taiwan not operational.
4. You are igoring the long range anti-radiation missiles again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Who cares about a new stealth fighter? If you play Deus Ex, you'll know that we're due for a stealth HELICOPTER in a few decades.
Now that I'd like to see. How on earth could you "stealthify" a helicopter? Is it even possible? |
Yes it is possible, as it has already been done. The US Comanche helicopter is stealth, but it, after countless delays and other inefficiencies, will not be introduced for a few more years yet. Its been in developement since like the early 90s, IIRC. If you know what an Apache helicopter is, its basically like that in function, and similar in form (except without the protruding stub pylons that the apache has to carry weapon payloads... the comanche carries these in an internal weapons bay, much like the F-22 Raptor)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
true, but the basic technology all exists... it merely must be improved, integrated, and most importantly, produced more cheaply. It will be sometime before all this happens... |
Well, cool then. It's good to know that I have chances to see Powered armor (those guys stolen the idea from Fallout, I'm sure) in my lifetime.
Nice looking toys, a bit bulky, but still looking fine.
Btw,  Did you read "personal opinions" in the end of this article? This heretic is saying that those rifles actully sucks How dare he? It's such cool looking rifles.
quote:
it is a big deal ( i know no one else who can use the *roll eyes* smilie as effective, tho superfluous, as yourself) |
Not so big considering that we have such toys too. Phasers, shmazers, megamazers- full arsenal. But tssss... it's a secret information.
quote:
perhaps. but like most US equipment, our guided shells will have superior range, accuracy, and effectiveness in general |
I'm afraid you are ABSOLUTELY wrong here and btw, we already offereing this ammo on world market (India bought some, iirc) aside your "already out in small numbers and for certain weapons"
quote:
hmm... you sound skeptical. |
I'm sound realistic. I'm almost sure that you've made a mistake. No torpedo can travel with speed of 5400 kmph.
quote:
and the reason why the torpedo goes so fast: gas is emitted through a nozel at the tip, this gas forms water vapor that effectively incases the torpedo in a bubble. This 'bubble' allows the torpedo to travel thru the water with virtually no drag. Combined with a rocket engine, the torpedo can travel as fast as a...err... rocket. This expalins why it can travel faster than jets. It is only theoretical presently, but researches at the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center have already launched an experimental supercavitating torpedo that broke the sound-barrier. |
This is EXACTLY how "Shkval" works. It means that you finaly solen "Shkval"- the technology Russians invented 20 years ago. Bastards.
quote:
well, this is the problem currently with developing rail guns. We would probably already have them if it werent for this. They are trying to develope guided munitions for them, in order to make them effective, but these are more 'fragile' than the standard 'hard shells' and have a very hard time surviving the hyper-velocity launch speeds (the friction produced at these speeds often melt the projectile, welding it to the inside of the bore). Once conquered however, rest assured they will be equally effective, and much, much cheaper than your missiles. |
I don't know how gun shot on distances about 500 miles could be accurate. (I have no idea how exactly you gonna deliver shels on such great distance too). It's just beyond me. Imho, the age of big cannons is over. It's a dead end. Those guys just wasting your money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, well, in that case, the only similar experience to the falling apart of the Soviet Union was the US Civil War. And I don't recall the CSA winning.
|
I don't see any similarities here. There was no civil war in 1991 to your knowledge.
quote:
No one's saying the US is invincible forever. We're just saying the US is invincible for today and the forseeable future. |
American thinking is funny. With such thinking you will never defeat China. It's bodybuilder's philosophy- pump your muscles and don't worry about anything else. USA reminds me such thug, as Arnie for example- "hey babe, look at my back...it's huge isn't it? Now look at my leg...fantastic size isn't it? I'm the strongest, just look at my muscles. I can kick everyone's as$es easily"
quote:
Yes, because the US would have loads of trouble winning any naval war against an Asian country Hell, the USN would beat every Asian navy - including the Russian navy - combined, and everyone knows that. |
Not everyone. Every American, perhaps, but not everyone.
quote:
Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own. |
Sure you did it for us.
quote:
Persian Gulf, to start with. |
Hmmm...where did I heard this?
"Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own. "
quote:
Panama and Grenada come to mind. |
Great victories, my ass.
quote:
Laughable. You didn't beat Hitler by yourself, you needed virtually the rest of the world's help. |
Oh sure, it's the rest of the world who destroyed his army.
quote:
This was non-assisted? For starters, the Russian Winter is what beat Napoleon - not the non-existence Russian victory at Borodino.
And never mind the fact that the Peninsular War tied up over 300,000 French troops at the same time. Never mind the fact that it was the British and Dutch and Prussians who won at Waterloo, not the Russians. |
And never mind the fact that Napoleon was running away from Russia like beaten dog. And never mind the fact that he lost about million of soldiers here overall.
quote:
Eventually they got kicked out, although not before conquering and plundering Russia as it existed at the time. Hardly a brilliant victory, and hardly unassisted by other factors, such as Mongol internal politics. |
Without such hardly brilliant victories Europe was conquered and it would be Indians who discover Europe, not Europeans who discover America. Ungratefull bastard.
quote:
You mean like in the Crimean War? Good job winning that one |
I mean other half of the dozen wars we've won against Turkey. Who do you think gave independece to Serbia and Bulgaria, Harry Poter? If not Brits and French pressure there wouldn't be Stambul today, only Constaninopol.
quote:
You never beat the Swedes until Poltava. Gustavus Adolphus kicked the **** out of Russia in his day. And Russia damn well better have won, considering their huge numerical superiority. In fact, as I recall, that's all Russia has ever relied on to win battles - numerical superiority. Hardly a brilliant strategy - hell, my cat could figure that one out |
Blah...blah...blah...Swedes did beaten Russians in Poltava first time. Not a big deal considering that Sweden army was the strongest army in Europe, not a big deal when elite soldiers beats 50 000 of peasants. Nine years later they faced absolutely different army and were beaten. And not because of numeric superiority. We won this war, not the other way around, so shut the f*ck up, please.
quote:
So you beat the Poles in the 1920s? |
Yep, they were lucky this time. Great victory. To your knowledge, at this time we fought vs dozen of other countries and half our own population.
quote:
If you are referring to the Polish Partition, you might recall that this was by no means an unassisted victory. |
Yeah and repeling of Polish invasion in 17 century was assisted victory too?
quote:
Oh bollocks. If the US, Britain, France, etc., had actually committed to a full scale war, Russia - oh excuse me the Soviet Union |
Wrong mr. Floyd. Russia, not Soviet Union. SU didn't existed at this time.
quote:
- would have gotten its ass kicked, unless you are trying to argue that it was stronger in the middle of a civil war, after huge losses in WW1, than it was before and during the time when Germany by itself was whipping the **** out of it with less than half of its army. |
Of course it was MUCH, thousands times MUCH stronger. You will never understand this. The key word is motivation.
quote:
Yes, space-based weapons are totally irrelevant |
I meant, not unique not irrelevant.
quote:
You have two of those that are (semi) active, with no money to procure more or even adequately maintain and exercise the two you have. If that's the best you have, I'm not worried - those'll get beat by US naval aviation, anti-ship missiles, and submarines operating together. |
Come and get them. I'm tired of your crap.
quote:
Fine, then the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam either. The US Army won every major battle, including and especially the Tet Offensive. |
Do you want to compare loss ratio? Kill ratio without millions of civilians whom your shining and peace loving democracy killed during carped bombardments and due chem&bio weapons of course.
quote:
The Japanese Imperial Army was irrelevant to the final defeat of Japan. Not only that, but the portion you fought was the Kwangtung Army, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover. |
Too tired to write it myself so:
The German forces in Normandy were irrelevant to the final defeat of Germany. Not only that, but the portion you fought was divisions such as Hitler Yougent and divisions of WW1 badly injured veterans, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.
How do you like that?
quote:
Your victory in Manchuria in no way affected the US victories against Japan, which are what decided the war. Those millions of Japanese troops in China, Manchuria, and Korea were irrelevant because they could not be transported back to Japan. |
And how many milions Japanese troops America defeated?
quote:
And in any case, the Soviet Union would NOT have defeated Germany on its own. |
BULLSH*T.
quote:
This is not only due to Lend Lease, but also largely due to the fact that by 1944 over a million Germans were tied down in anti-aircraft duties in the West, over a million German troops were in Italy and the Balkans, over 400,000 were in Norway, and 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500+ tanks - were in France, along with over 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength. |
If you occupy almost entire Europe and declared war on everyone, you should maintain some troops there to jold this territory. That's the rule.
quote:
If Germany had been able to throw over 2 million additional troops, 2000 additional tanks, a couple thousand additional fighters, and vast numbers of 88s onto the Eastern Front, |
It can't thrown 2 millions. And even if so, then we thrown 4 millions. If they thrown 9 additional panzer divisions, we' thrown 18 tank division, because SU had much more manpower and industrial capacity then Germany.
quote:
do you really think that the Soviets would have made anything close to the gains they did? |
YES.
quote:
I certainly don't, and in fact, I rather expect that the front would have largely stabilized, and the Germans might even have regained some ground. |
It's your expectations, nothing more. Go read another anti-Soviet book- your favorite source of knowledge.
quote:
The longer the war went on, the SU's rail transportation system became more and more taxed - by 1945 it was at a breaking point, EVEN WITH Lend Lease, which accounted for well over 85% of both new rail tracks and rolling stock. Extend the war a couple more years and take away Lend Lease, and suddenly the Red Army has to march from north to south and east to west, not take the trains. Germany would have had no such problems, given the fact that the US/Britain strategic bombing war would not have been taking place, and the fact that the SU had no capability to launch such a campaign. |
Blah...blah...blah....
1) First strategic bombing of Berlin Soviets made at August of 1941, when USA wasn't in even in war with Germany. There was no need for this later.
2) It's Hitler who declared war on USA, not the other way around. Like you have choice, like you could stay out of war if your enemy already declared war on you.
quote:
German production would have been even higher, and as the war went on Germany would have been able to better exploit the industrial potential of the areas they had conquered. Further, without having to fight Britain and the US, there would have been no embargo (and, by the way, no need to divert massive resources to the U-Boat campaign). |
Again, it was Hilter who declared war on USA. So, your fascinating speech is in fact crap.
quote:
This means that Germany would have had access to the world market for oil and rubber, among other things, such as the international money market and credit system. German national wealth was certainly greater than that of the Soviet Union, which would have translated into a much better ability to finance a long war. |
BULLSH*T. Comlete bullsh*t. They drafted 14 years old boys in 1945. What kind of long war are you talking about?
quote:
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have been much worse off than they were historically, because of a lack of the major advantages they possessed in a coalition-type war, and the influx of billions of dollars worth of free equipment, food, supplies, etc. |
Free equipment my ass. Still playing a hero? YOU WERE MAKING BUCKS. When you will understand this? Bucks, money, $$$. I don't know how to explain it better.
quote:
Really, saying that the SU would have beaten Nazi Germany on its own is incredibly silly. |
Saying otherwise is super silliness.
quote:
The US certainly had the balls to fight the British Empire in 1812, for example, and to fight an undeclared naval war against the French in the early 1800s. Those contests were certainly not even, by any stretch of the imagination |
Cool, so you defeated a couple of thousands soldiers of British Empire and sunk few French ships? Outstanding.
It's nowhere near much greater acheivments then destruction of entire Napoleon's army.
Next time could you please write a bit less? I'm really tired after answering this post.
Last edited by Serb on 31-01-2003 at 09:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
I don't see any similarities here. There was no civil war in 1991 to your knowledge. |
No ****, but it's the closest thing the US has experienced to what happened to the Soviet Union.
quote:
Not everyone. Every American, perhaps, but not everyone. |
Everyone who knows anything knows that the USN would defeat every navy in Asia, no questions asked.
quote:
And never mind the fact that Napoleon was running away from Russia like beaten dog. And never mind the fact that he lost about million of soldiers here overall. |
The Russian winter is what beat the French, not the Russian army. The French took Moscow, remember. The French didn't lose anywhere near a million soldiers - maybe half that, at the most. But the point is that the French were driven out of Russia because of how cold it was, not because of the Russian Army.
quote:
Without such hardly brilliant victories Europe was conquered and it would be Indians who discover Europe, not Europeans who discover America. |
Ummm, actually the Mongols stopped in Eastern Europe due to the death of the Great Khan back home. The hordes turned around and went back home to install a successor, and they never returned in force to Europe. This is an example of internal Mongol politics. This is not an example of Russia saving Europe.
quote:
Blah...blah...blah...Swedes did beaten Russians in Poltava first time. Not a big deal considering that Sweden army was the strongest army in Europe, not a big deal when elite soldiers beats 50 000 of peasants. Nine years later they faced absolutely different army and were beaten. And not because of numeric superiority. |
Wrong. At Poltava, in 1709 the Russian army was vastly superior in numbers. The Russians had about 44,000 men and 100 cannon, while the Swedes had only 17,000 and 4 cannon. Basically, the Russians outnumbered the Swedes almost 3 to 1, and in cannon 25 to 1. Further, once Charles XII was wounded very early on, command passed to Field Marshal Rhenskold, who had trouble with the other officers and issued unclear orders. Finally, the Swedish artillery, which was historically excellent, was unable to fire because of a lack of gunpowder.
But this is only the battle. When Charles XII invaded in 1708, the Russian army didn't fight him in a pitched battle, but rather simply retreated and used scorched earth tactics - hardly the sign of a superior army.
Put aside your nationalism - the Russians won at Poltava because a)Sweden was fighting an entire coalition (including, FYI, Poland), b)the Swedes were outnumbered 3 to 1, c)the Swedes were very low on food and gunpowder, and d)the Swedish chain of command was interrupted.
quote:
To your knowledge, at this time we fought vs dozen of other countries and half our own population. |
I don't feel too sorry for you, though, seeing as how it was the Soviet Union that invaded Poland.
quote:
Wrong mr. Floyd. Russia, not Soviet Union. SU didn't existed at this time. |
Semantics. Whatever.
quote:
Of course it was MUCH, thousands times MUCH stronger. You will never understand this. The key word is motivation. |
Motivation had nothing to do with it. The Russian Army took millions and millions of casualties in the First World War, and had very little industrial capability as compared to the Western powers. Again, if the Russian Army couldn't beat much less than half of the German Army in 1914-1917, I fail to see why the Russian Army WOULD beat the combined armies of 14 nations, including the US, Britain, and France, after that time in the middle of a civil war. That does not compute.
quote:
Come and get them. I'm tired of your crap. |
Those two Kirovs would be on the bottom before most Russians knew the war had started. That is, assuming they were actually at sea at the time. More likely they'd just be sitting in port rusting with the rest of the Russian navy.
quote:
Do you want to compare loss ratio? |
Oh, well if kill/loss ratio is such a big deal, then the US must have absolutely destroyed the Chinese in Korea, right?
quote:
The German forces in Normandy were irrelevant to the final defeat of Germany. Not only that, but the portion you fought was divisions such as Hitler Yougent and divisions of WW1 badly injured veterans, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.
How do you like that? |
That's pretty stupid, to be quite honest. If you can't see the difference between millions of Japanese troops on mainland Asia, trapped there because of the USN, and two million German troops and 2000+ tanks a train ride away from the Eastern Front, I guess that's your problem, isn't it?
quote:
And how many milions Japanese troops America defeated? |
Japan was a maritime nation. To defeat Japan, you have to defeat their navy and merchant marine. The US did both of these things, and was starving Japan into submission. The Soviet Union contributed nothing to this. Further, the US was absolutely destroying Japan through strategic bombing. Again, the SU contributed nothing to this.
1 billion Japanese troops in China and Korea would not have been relevant any more than a couple of million were.
Make an argument, don't just make one word replies.
quote:
If you occupy almost entire Europe and declared war on everyone, you should maintain some troops there to jold this territory. That's the rule. |
No ****, but the hypothetical is if Germany was fighting the SU in a one on one. I thought you understood this.
quote:
And even if so, then we thrown 4 millions. |
Oh, right, because the Soviet Union had 4 million men sitting around somewhere in the interior just waiting for Germany to deploy 2 million to the front. Please.
quote:
If they thrown 9 additional panzer divisions, we' thrown 18 tank division, |
18 Soviet Tank divisions were not really a match for 9 German Panzer divisions.
quote:
because SU had much more manpower and industrial capacity then Germany. |
The SU had a good bit more manpower, to be sure, but most of its reliable manpower was gone by 1945 (same as in Germany). In terms of industrial capacity, don't be so sure. Without the huge US/British strategic bombing campaign, German production would have been much higher.
quote:
1) First strategic bombing of Berlin Soviets made at August of 1941, when USA wasn't in even in war with Germany. There was no need for this later. |
Actually the British bombed Berlin back in 1940
But in any case, are you trying to argue that the US strategic bombing campaign wasn't vital to the defeat of Germany?
quote:
2) It's Hitler who declared war on USA, not the other way around. Like you have choice, like you could stay out of war if your enemy already declared war on you. |
a)We should have tried harder.
b)Hy-po-thet-i-cal.
quote:
They drafted 14 years old boys in 1945. What kind of long war are you talking about? |
The kind of long war where the Western, Mediterranean, Southern European, Atlantic, and strategic bombing fronts don't tie up millions of German soldiers and a huge amount of production.
quote:
Free equipment my ass. Still playing a hero? YOU WERE MAKING BUCKS. |
Actually the point of Lend-Lease was that we were giving it to you on the silly notion that the equipment would be returned later. The SU did not pay for the vast majority of it.
quote:
It's nowhere near much greater acheivments then destruction of entire Napoleon's army. |
At least I don't try to take credit for the weather, like you apparently do
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Next time could you please write a bit less? I'm really tired after answering this post. |
Sounds like your problem, I'm sorry if you run out of debate material, though 
quote:
Why begging for help then? |
Actually, in 1945 when you actually attacked, the US wasn't too concerned one way or another, and in any case, the point of it was to show a united front, show Japan that a negotiated surrender was impossible. In other words, the US was not concerned with military help from the SU, but rather, diplomatic support, if you will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
I can say the same about invasion in Normandy in 1944, several months before the end of war. |
You could say that, but as usual it would be incorrect. The US was fighting Germany from December 1941 on, in the Atlantic, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and the skies over Europe. These campaigns tied down a huge amount of German production, thousands of tanks and planes, and millions of soldiers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
No ****, but it's the closest thing the US has experienced to what happened to the Soviet Union.
|
Teenagers.
quote:
Everyone who knows anything knows that the USN would defeat every navy in Asia, no questions asked. |
Blah...blah...blah...
"Everyone knows this, because everyone knows this and no questions asked, you silly morons."
quote:
The Russian winter is what beat the French, not the Russian army. The French took Moscow, remember. The French didn't lose anywhere near a million soldiers - maybe half that, at the most. But the point is that the French were driven out of Russia because of how cold it was, not because of the Russian Army. |
It sounds like complete crap, whine and silly exuses as for me.- "Mammy, it was so cold there, so I just run away."
quote:
Ummm, actually the Mongols stopped in Eastern Europe due to the death of the Great Khan back home. The hordes turned around and went back home to install a successor, and they never returned in force to Europe. This is an example of internal Mongol politics. This is not an example of Russia saving Europe. |
Russians fought vs. Mongols during 3 centuries. Hmmm this Mongol Khan sure was the pretty old dude.
quote:
Wrong. At Poltava, in 1709 the Russian army was vastly superior in numbers. The Russians had about 44,000 men and 100 cannon, while the Swedes had only 17,000 and 4 cannon. Basically, the Russians outnumbered the Swedes almost 3 to 1, and in cannon 25 to 1. |
Intresting, if there were only 17 000 Swedes, how the hell Russians killed 9 000, took 19 000 prisoners and after the chase for retreating remains of Sweden army took another 15 000 prisoners near village Perevolochna? Together it's 45 000. Btw, in this battle only 1345 Russians soldiers were killed and 3290 wounded. Not to mention that garnison of Poltava- only 4000 soldiers held ten times larger Sweden forces for three months and remained undefeated btw.
And btw, where do you think Russians took so many cannons? They took it from Swedes in previous battles, as trophies of course.
quote:
Further, once Charles XII was wounded very early on, command passed to Field Marshal Rhenskold, who had trouble with the other officers and issued unclear orders. |
Sh*t happens. Peter the Great was personaly leading infantry batalion in attack and was unharmed. Fortune smiles to strongest.
quote:
Finally, the Swedish artillery, which was historically excellent, was unable to fire because of a lack of gunpowder. |
Their problem. This arrogant bastard should have think twice before invading Russia. When entire population hates invaders so much that prefer to burn their own houses it's hard to create good supply routes. I doubt you ever heard about Sweden atrocities. They burned entire vilages with population alive. You think locals should have been grateful to such "guests"?
quote:
But this is only the battle. When Charles XII invaded in 1708, the Russian army didn't fight him in a pitched battle, but rather simply retreated and used scorched earth tactics - hardly the sign of a superior army. |
Do you know which order Charles gave to his troops? No prisoners. After the battles Swedes walked through the battlefeild and kill by bayonets all wounded Russians, then they used bayonets to kill captured prisoners- didn't wanted to waste bullets. No one at this time showed such attitude toward defeated enemy. Civilians they treated sometimes even worse. And you think peasants had choice except to burn their own houses and run as far away as possible from those beasts?
quote:
Put aside your nationalism - the Russians won at Poltava because a)Sweden was fighting an entire coalition (including, FYI, Poland), |
Coalition, my as$. The only Russian ally- Polish king August II betrayed Russians, surrendered and become Swedish vassal. He showed his great military spirit when he pissed off his pants and cowardly run away from Grodno (iirc, no really sure about the place where it was) when there was gossip that Swedes are coming. Great ally and great coalition, my as$.
quote:
b)the Swedes were outnumbered 3 to 1, |
It's bullshit of course and btw, kill/loss ration was almost 10:1 in faivor of Russins.
quote:
c)the Swedes were very low on food and gunpowder, and |
Their problem. It sounds like an exuse.
quote:
d)the Swedish chain of command was interrupted. |
Their problem. It sounds like an exuse.
You want to hear my version why they have lost this battle?
1) Too damn arrogant king who understimated Russian strengh and overstimated his own. He considered himself as some kind of God of war, new Alexander.
2) Russian army of 1709 was nowhere near of Russian army of 1700. In 1700 it was peasants wearing uniform mostly. Not a big deal when 13000 elite soldiers defeat 50 000 peasants. During those years Peter the Great made titanic work and created new, modern army, an army that was able to crush the strongest army of Europe.
3) First time in military history feild ground fortifications "reduty" (don't know how to say it on English) were used, as well as fast and mobile horse artilery.
4) Morale of Russians soldiers was nowhere near morale of Swedes.
5) Thanks to military genious of Peter the great and courage of simple soldiers.
quote:
I don't feel too sorry for you, though, seeing as how it was the Soviet Union that invaded Poland. |
Oh great logic. It's Ok when Poland backstabing and attacking Soviets when they were fighting in civil war and vs. foreign intervention, because 11 years later Soviets invaded Poland and returned lands which Poles took as result of this backstab. Cool, just cool.
quote:
Semantics. Whatever. |
Knowledge of history. SU was created much later. Young Soviet republic and Soviet Union are absolutely different things.
quote:
Motivation had nothing to do with it. The Russian Army took millions and millions of casualties in the First World War, and had very little industrial capability as compared to the Western powers. Again, if the Russian Army couldn't beat much less than half of the German Army in 1914-1917, I fail to see why the Russian Army WOULD beat the combined armies of 14 nations, including the US, Britain, and France, after that time in the middle of a civil war. That does not compute. |
WTF are you talking about? To your knowledge, Soviet republic survived the civil war and foreign intervention. Just borned red army, poorly equiped and unexpeienced was able not only to win civil war, but to kick foreign agressors as$es. And it's not hypotetical, that's how it actually was about century ago.
quote:
Those two Kirovs would be on the bottom before most Russians knew the war had started. That is, assuming they were actually at sea at the time. More likely they'd just be sitting in port rusting with the rest of the Russian navy. |
I'm sure you'll spend a dozen of nukes hunting those two ships, because your admirals obviously don't have balls to aproach and fight against them in fair battle.
quote:
Oh, well if kill/loss ratio is such a big deal, then the US must have absolutely destroyed the Chinese in Korea, right? |
Wtf? Are you dodging? We were talking about Vietnam and Afghanistan. Remember?
quote:
That's pretty stupid, to be quite honest. If you can't see the difference between millions of Japanese troops on mainland Asia, trapped there because of the USN, and two million German troops and 2000+ tanks a train ride away from the Eastern Front, I guess that's your problem, isn't it? |
Wow!!!
It's two millions now. Last time we talked it was one million. Inflation? Nah...looks more like bullsh!ting. And thats your problem.
quote:
Japan was a maritime nation. To defeat Japan, you have to defeat their navy and merchant marine. The US did both of these things, and was starving Japan into submission. The Soviet Union contributed nothing to this. Further, the US was absolutely destroying Japan through strategic bombing. Again, the SU contributed nothing to this. |
So, destruction of Japan's ground forces it's nothing in compare with destruction of fleet, right?
quote:
1 billion Japanese troops in China and Korea would not have been relevant any more than a couple of million were. |
This one milion could perfectly fight on it's own. Destruction of fleet and industrial capacity, it's fine, but as Kutuzov said -" the country do not surrender as long as its army is undefeated" Or something like this.
quote:
Make an argument, don't just make one word replies. |
"No **** Sherlock" (c) David Floyd sounds better?
quote:
No ****, but the hypothetical is if Germany was fighting the SU in a one on one. I thought you understood this. |
Hypothetical, shmipotetical. I'm tired of this. What's so good in those "what if?" scenarious. It's all crap fantasies, absolutely useless.
quote:
Oh, right, because the Soviet Union had 4 million men sitting around somewhere in the interior just waiting for Germany to deploy 2 million to the front. Please. |
They weren't sitting around somewhere, they were working in industry, but if needed they would have been drafted. SU had much more manpower- that's was the message.
quote:
18 Soviet Tank divisions were not really a match for 9 German Panzer divisions. |
Oh really?
At the beggining of war, when tanks were spread among the army, perhaps, but later when tank forces were reorganised- no way.
Name me one single German tank which was better then its Soviet counterpart.
quote:
The SU had a good bit more manpower, to be sure, but most of its reliable manpower was gone by 1945 (same as in Germany). |
Not the same. There were no 14 years old boys in Soviet army in 1945.
quote:
In terms of industrial capacity, don't be so sure. Without the huge US/British strategic bombing campaign, German production would have been much higher. |
I don't know about MUCH higher, but even so, I doubt they could outproduce SU. And as I understood, you said long war, which in my opinion means longer then 1941-1945. If in 1945 Hitler drafted 14 years old boys, whom do you think he would draft in 1946? 12 years old boys?
quote:
But in any case, are you trying to argue that the US strategic bombing campaign wasn't vital to the defeat of Germany? |
No. I said there was no need for this later, (for us) because you and British were doing this. Bombing Germany from England is much easier than from Moscow, don't you think so?
quote:
a)We should have tried harder. |
Really? Something like this?
" Hitler's subs sunk another dozen of ships, but it's Ok we should stay out of war"
quote:
b)Hy-po-thet-i-cal. |
That's why this talk is useless, btw- 'cal' means 'sh!t' in Russian.
quote:
The kind of long war where the Western, Mediterranean, Southern European, Atlantic, and strategic bombing fronts don't tie up millions of German soldiers and a huge amount of production. |
Millions, millions and millions, next time it will be "hordes of elite warriors", right? Just make a little research compare the number of troops which Hitler had on Western front with the same statistic about Eastern front. I bet you'll see that froces he had on Western front it's just small percent of overall forces.
quote:
Actually the point of Lend-Lease was that we were giving it to you on the silly notion that the equipment would be returned later. The SU did not pay for the vast majority of it. |
The point was profit, the rest is bullsh!t. And Soviets paid for this pretty well. "Help to Russians it's good investment of money" F.D. Roosevelt.
quote:
At least I don't try to take credit for the weather, like you apparently do |
Yeah...pretty funny
You know, I'm really tired to fight with you. No matter which war we disscus, you always have the same answer- "Russians won, because of numbers, Russian winter and because their enemies don't have food/ammo/clothes/toulet paper". I'm really tired to hear your broken recorder. I should better drink something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Sounds like your problem, I'm sorry if you run out of debate material, though
|
Where are you take your debate material? Pulling out of your as$ perhaps?
quote:
Actually, in 1945 when you actually attacked, the US wasn't too concerned one way or another, and in any case, the point of it was to show a united front, show Japan that a negotiated surrender was impossible. In other words, the US was not concerned with military help from the SU, but rather, diplomatic support, if you will. |
Really? Perhaps because you aren't sure that your nukes will work and you need someone to deal with 1 000 000 army located in mailand while you will assault the islands?
Anyhow, David I'm not saying that without SU enterance in war vs. Japan it wouldn't have been defeated. However you saying that without invasion in Normandy Soviets would never beaten Germany. And who here looks silly after that?
Last edited by Serb on 31-01-2003 at 18:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You could say that, but as usual it would be incorrect. The US was fighting Germany from December 1941 on, in the Atlantic, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and the skies over Europe. These campaigns tied down a huge amount of German production, thousands of tanks and planes, and millions of soldiers. |
Yeah...I guess something about 10% of their total forces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Serb,
quote:
It sounds like complete crap, whine and silly exuses as for me.- "Mammy, it was so cold there, so I just run away." |
That, in fact, is pretty much correct in terms of Napoleon.
In terms of Hitler, the cold didn't force the Germans to retreat all the way back to Germany, but the weather DID cost them absolute victory in Operation Typhoon.
quote:
Russians fought vs. Mongols during 3 centuries. Hmmm this Mongol Khan sure was the pretty old dude. |
I'm talking about the initial Mongol advance. After that, sure, the Russians fought them, but the Mongols never made any attempt to conquer Europe.
quote:
Intresting, if there were only 17 000 Swedes, how the hell Russians killed 9 000, took 19 000 prisoners and after the chase for retreating remains of Sweden army took another 15 000 prisoners near village Perevolochna? Together it's 45 000. |
I don't know what your sources are, but they are quite inaccurate. Try these:
http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/proje...ne/decline5.htm
"100 Decisive Battles", by Paul Davis, pgs. 231-236
http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/Rehnskio.html
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/swedhis/swed1700.htm
http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=253&WID=60
quote:
Their problem. This arrogant bastard should have think twice before invading Russia. When entire population hates invaders so much that prefer to burn their own houses it's hard to create good supply routes. I doubt you ever heard about Sweden atrocities. They burned entire vilages with population alive. You think locals should have been grateful to such "guests"? |
And I think that you are confusing peasants with the official line. The average peasant in Russia in 1700 didn't give two shits whether he was ruled by Peter the Great or Charles the XII, as long as he was alive. Why should he? He didn't have freedom under one any more so than the other - and in fact, he didn't have any concept of political or personal freedom. He did what he was told by those with weapons, but I seriously doubt he really cared that much.
quote:
No one at this time showed such attitude toward defeated enemy. |
Not true at all. Read up on the 30 Years War, and especially the sacking of Magdeburg by Tilly's mercenaries in 1632.
quote:
only Russian ally- Polish king August II betrayed Russians, surrendered and become Swedish vassal. |
Peter the Great also refused to march in support of his ally. Who betrayed whom, I wonder? Why should the Poles be loyal to an "ally" that won't support them?
quote:
It's bullshit of course and btw, kill/loss ration was almost 10:1 in faivor of Russins. |
It damn well better be, considering their huge numerical and logistical superiority.
quote:
Oh great logic. It's Ok when Poland backstabing and attacking Soviets when they were fighting in civil war and vs. foreign intervention, because 11 years later Soviets invaded Poland and returned lands which Poles took as result of this backstab. |
No, war is never OK. You know my feelings about that.
quote:
Young Soviet republic and Soviet Union are absolutely different things. |
Whatever. I wouldn't want to live in either.
quote:
WTF are you talking about? To your knowledge, Soviet republic survived the civil war and foreign intervention. Just borned red army, poorly equiped and unexpeienced was able not only to win civil war, but to kick foreign agressors as$es. |
Yes, and the point is that if the 14 foreign nations really wanted to destroy Russia, or whatever it is you're calling it, it would not have been a problem. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
quote:
I'm sure you'll spend a dozen of nukes hunting those two ships, because your admirals obviously don't have balls to aproach and fight against them in fair battle. |
Yes, just like the US didn't have the balls to take on the Royal Navy in 1812, or didn't have the balls to take on vastly superior Japanese naval forces at Midway.
If the US has historically had the balls to fight vastly superior forces, why should the US worry about two piddly ships that are rusting somewhere in port?
quote:
Wtf? Are you dodging? We were talking about Vietnam and Afghanistan. Remember? |
Yes, and if you want to bring up kill/loss ratio, the US won in Korea, which you would of course deny. You're being inconsistent. Further, the kill/loss ratio of US vs. NVA/VC was heavily in favor of the US. The Vietnamese lost MILLIONS, the US, 56,000.
quote:
It's two millions now. Last time we talked it was one million. Inflation? Nah...looks more like bullsh!ting. And thats your problem. |
Actually, last time I estimated two million (a million men in Italy/Balkans, 400,000 in Norway, and 46 divisions in France is actually more than two million), plus around a million on air defense duties. Scroll up.
quote:
So, destruction of Japan's ground forces it's nothing in compare with destruction of fleet, right? |
I would think that's obvious.
quote:
This one milion could perfectly fight on it's own |
Maybe so, but they couldn't fight in Japan, where it actually mattered. 100,000 Japanese troops on Truk could have fought, but they were irrelevant, since the US just bypassed them.
quote:
Hypothetical, shmipotetical. I'm tired of this. What's so good in those "what if?" scenarious. |
I thought that is what we were discussing. And the point is to show you that the SU did not and could not have won WW2 on its own.
quote:
They weren't sitting around somewhere, they were working in industry, but if needed they would have been drafted. |
Brilliant plan. Draft the few skilled workers in the SU and send them into the meat grinder, plus most of the factory workers. I bet Soviet production would tank, if that happened. Of course, historically, their front lane tank strength would have remained pretty constant, simply because the US and Britain would have sent more than enough tanks to make up the difference, if they needed to. But without the US and Britain, this wouldn't have happened, obviously.
quote:
Name me one single German tank which was better then its Soviet counterpart. |
I don't really see the relevance of that. Germany had the better mobile forces and mobile doctrine through the entire war, and the better NCOs and junior officers.
Germany also had the better leadership, except for the fact that Hitler ****ed around with the Army and tried to install his SS buddies and himself into commands they didn't know what to do with.
quote:
I don't know about MUCH higher, but even so, I doubt they could outproduce SU. And as I understood, you said long war, which in my opinion means longer then 1941-1945. If in 1945 Hitler drafted 14 years old boys, whom do you think he would draft in 1946? |
The war wouldn't have even gone that far. In a one on one, assuming Hitler didn't **** with the army to a great degree (and probably even if he did), the SU would have gotten knocked out earlier than 1945. And even if it didn't, Germany still wouldn't have been drafted 14 year olds at that point, because of the large number of troops that would have been available outside of pointless garrison duties.
quote:
No. I said there was no need for this later, (for us) because you and British were doing this. Bombing Germany from England is much easier than from Moscow, don't you think so? |
The SU did not have a long range strategic bomber - nor, for that matter, significant numbers of ANY bomber - that could hit Germany's industry. I guess they could have built and developed them, but this would have put a huge crimp in tank production, now wouldn't it?
quote:
Really? Something like this?
" Hitler's subs sunk another dozen of ships, but it's Ok we should stay out of war" |
No, more along the lines of "Gee, guys, we probably shouldn't supply England with weapons and radio the positions of U-boats to the Royal Navy. That might provoke a war."
quote:
I bet you'll see that froces he had on Western front it's just small percent of overall forces. |
Sure, if I ONLY look at the Western Front AFTER Operation Cobra and the Falaise Gap and the US-British race across France. But if I look at the West, Italy/Balkans, and Scandanavia, all without US/British involvement, it isn't a tiny percentage. It's not a majority, but it is significant.
quote:
The point was profit, the rest is bullsh!t. And Soviets paid for this pretty well. "Help to Russians it's good investment of money" F.D. Roosevelt. |
You like to throw around unsubstantiated quotes, don't you? And who do you think profited more from Lend Lease, the US or SU?
quote:
No matter which war we disscus, you always have the same answer- "Russians won, because of numbers, Russian winter and because their enemies don't have food/ammo/clothes/toulet paper". |
The Russian/Soviet army has always been known as a "steamroller" by the rest of the world. This means that everyone considered the Russian army to be a big wave of men charging forward - basically, winning battles on the weight of numbers. And also through the leadership of General Mud and General Winter.
You certainly can't deny that these factors helped Russia win a lot of battles they would have otherwise lost - if, for example, the Soviet and German forces were exactly equal in numbers and the weather was perfect 100% of the time, Germany would have crushed the Soviets, and I don't see how you can deny this.
quote:
Perhaps because you aren't sure that your nukes will work and you need someone to deal with 1 000 000 army located in mailand while you will assault the islands? |
Why would the US need help defeating an irrelevant army?
quote:
However you saying that without invasion in Normandy Soviets would never beaten Germany. |
No, I'm saying that without overall US/British involvement in the war, the Soviets never would have won.
quote:
Yeah...I guess something about 10% of their total forces. |
You guess wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Serb,
That, in fact, is pretty much correct in terms of Napoleon.
In terms of Hitler, the cold didn't force the Germans to retreat all the way back to Germany, but the weather DID cost them absolute victory in Operation Typhoon.
|
As for retreat, German generals studied Napoleon's experiences of 1812 campaign in Russia very hard, before they attacked Sovied Union in 1941. Hitler's order 'no retreat' after Moscow defeat, is in fact saved Wermacht from sharing destiny of Napoleon's army. At least it's opinion of one of the German generals who fought there.
As for Moscow battle...
Ok. It's my own translation from Russian, so you could laugh about my grammar errors as long as you wish.
General Gunter Blumentrit, the head of feildmarshal von Kluge's 4th Army HQ:
" The Moscow battle brings first big defeat for German forces in WW2. It meant the end of "blitz-kreig" which gave brilliant victories in Poland, France and Balkans to Hitler and his army. First fatal decisions for third reich were maid in Russia. From political point of view, the major mistake was a decision to attack this country. Now we should fight vs. much stronger enemy then we ever fought before."
Feildmarshal von Rundshteit, the head of group of armies "South":
"The war vs. Russia is stupid idea, which couldn't have happy end in my opinion. But if because of political reasons we can't avoid this war, then we must admit that it can't be won within one Summer campaign. Just look on those huge territories. We can't destroy enemy and occupy those territories within few months. We must prepare ourselves to long war."
Feildmarshal von Brauhich (the head of Wermaht), general Galder (the head of his HQ), general Kestring, everyone who lived or fought vs. Russians during WW1 were trying to convince Hitler to do not attack Russia. Hitler has it's own opinion.
Now, Gunter Blumentrit about Moscow battle:
" Since June 22, our army come from one victory to another and even consider bad weather and bad roads it crossed huge distance from Bug to Moscow. This distance was crossed within 3.5 months! After the Vyazma battle was won, only "Moscow's deffensive line" separated us and Russians. It looks like Moscow should fall very soon. Everyone become very optimistic, everyone from feildmarshal von Bock to simple soldier thought that soon we will march throught streets of Russian capital. Hitler even created special team to destroy Kremlin. The minister of propaganda declared that war on east is over and that read Army is destroyed.
When we reached Moscow, our opinion was dramaticaly changed. With disapointment and surprise we found (in October and at the beggining of November) that beaten Russians armies didn't disapeared as military force. During last few weeks resistance of Russians only increased. Marshal Zhukov now commanded Soviet forces which defended Moscow. During several weeks his forces created deeply fortificated defences which laid throught forest near river Nara, from Serpukhov on East to Naro-Fominsk and further on North. Well hiden bunkers, wire obstacles and huge minefeilds now protected capital from the West side of the city.
From remains of old armies and new fresh forces, Russians created new, powerful armies. New reinforcements had come from Siberia. Stalin remained in city and decided to do not surrender it. We were very surprised, we couldn't beleive that situation is changed so dramaticaly after our desicive victories, when it was looks like Russian capital is almost in our hands.Officers and soldiers start to criticize silly speaches of our minister of propaganda. Soldiers were exhausted. Majority of infantry battalions had only 60-70 soldiers. We've lost many horses and have a big problems with movement of artilery. Our tank divisions received big casualties. Considering that war vs. Russia is already over Hitler ordered to reduce war production. Now we received minimal supplies.
The capacity of our too long supply lines weren't enough to support our troops. We had to reconstruct railroad tracks, because Russian railway track is wider then Western European. Deep in our base guerrilla warfare have started. We don't had enough forces to fight vs. guerrillias. They attacked our supply lines and made suffereings of our soldiers even greater.
The shadow of great Napolen's army chased us as ghost. The book of Napoleon's general Colenqur, become bible for feildmarshal von Kluge. We saw more and more matches between our situation and the situation of Napoleon's army.
Of course we have read about Russian roads and knew that there will be "rasputiza". What "rasputiza" means is impossible to explain to men who never be in Russia and never saw it with his own eyes. It started in the midle of October and constantly increased untill the midle of November. All territory of country was covered with mud. The soldiers could move very slowly through this mud. To move artilery we should have use many horses. Trucks can't move trought this mud. Many heavy guns were lost on roads and weren't used in Moscow battle. Tanks and other vehicles often were swallowed by this mud. Now it's not hard to imagine what type of pressure faced our already tired and exhaused forces. And at this moment we faced new, no less unpleasant surprise. During Vyazma battle first Russian T-34 tanks apeared. In 1941 those tanks were the most powerfull tanks in the world. 37mm and 50mm anti-tank guns were useless vs. those tanks, they couldn't harm them. Our infantry were unprotected vs. those tanks. Near river Vereya those tanks easily went through positions of 7th infantry division, reached artilery positions and "pressed" guns located there. I guess I don't need to explain how it affected morale of our infantry. The so-called "tank fobia" had started.
Our aviaton acted exellent. However, it tooks losses. There were no airfeilds in needed quantity, especialy in time of "rasputiza". The amount of crushes during landings and take-offs greatly increased.
Our forces were weakened and exhaused. Russian forces had deeply fortificated defenses in forests which surrounds Moscow. Part of our artilery was lost in mud somewhere between rivers Vyazma and Nara. But Moscow was near. At night we could saw flashes of Russian anti-aircraft artilery fire in sky over Moscow. What should have happen?"
later:
"The meeting in Orsha
In November the cheif of general HQ hade a meeting with cheifs of 3 army groups. Ther was only one question- should German armies turn to defense and wait for Spring or shold they continue offence during Winter?
After long debate the desicion was- to continue offence, but only when the weather will be more cold, when Russian 'rasputiza' will end and roads will become more or less good for movment.
The offence has started at November 30. The main direction was Naro-Fominsk. After few days after beggining of offence our infantry in several places has broken enemy deep fortfications in forest near river Nara. However, at December 2 it was clear that forces we have are not enough to complete our goal. Feildmarshal decided to stop the offence, which in current circamstances was cuicidal and only could bring new losses.
At the December 6 Russian counter-offence has began. It was a turning point of our Eastern campaign. the hopes to drive Russia out of the war had died at last minute. Now leadership of Germany should understand that the days of "blitz-kreige" has gone. We faced an enemy which was much more powerfull then any other enemy we saw before. It was clear for every German soldier that result of this battle determinate our future. If we'll be defeated by Russians, then wouldn't have chances in future. In 1812 Napoleon was able to escape Russia with tiny reminds of his great army. In 1941 Germans could stay or be destroyed. Bay the way, near Borodino feildmarshal von Kluge said speach to 4 battalions of French voluntires. He reminded that during Napoleon's times French and Germans fought against common enemy. On the next day French braverly engaged in battle, but unfortunately don't resisted powerful attack of the enemy. French legion was destroyed and after few days reminds of it were send to West front."
And so on. I don't have time to translate it further. So, these are the words of German general who fought in Moscow battle and who knows (aside you) what he is talking about. Aside complains about bad roads and alike, this rext contains few thoughts YOU seems to do not understands David. Such as:
When Germans reached Moscow they forces received huge losses in previous battles. Wermachts forces were exhaused, while Russians created deep fortifications around Moscow and received sugnificient reinforcements from Siberia. It was decision of German leadership to continue offence at winter time, and THEIR mistake, because they simply over-estimated their forces. And the main thought- they didn't have enough forces to took Moscow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
I see now from which sources you took your knowledge. Sorry, but homework of two 13-14 years old Sweden girls isn't a valuable source imho- no authors no references to books. Childish patriotic crap.
And? What are you trying to prove by those few lines? That: "When Charles was incapacitated by a wound just before the battle of Poltava (1709), he appointed Rehnskiöld commander in chief. "
Then fine, I never deny this. I'm still curious how this "deadly" injury in foot prevented Charles to command his troops, and at the same time didn't prevented him to run with tail between his legs to Turkey. I guess siting on drum and giving commands to army distrubs wounded foot less than run from Ukraine to Turkey.
Oh great source Just great WTF is this? The author sometimes calls Swedish king Karl sometimes Charles. And he have big problems with simpliest mathematics actions. Look at this numbers:
"The Battle of Poltava. About 22,000 in Swedish army, against 45,000 in Russian army. The Swedes are defeated, with some 7,000 killed and 2,500 captured. The King and the remaining army of about 15,000 retreat south-west to Perevolotjna. "
And make simple calculation: 7000kia+2500pow+15000captured later. 7000+2500+15000=24500 not 22000 as he himself claims.
One more thing. Russians didn't used bayonets to finish wounded and captured enemies (aside Charles troops) and usually in battles the number of wounded soldiers is at least few times greater than number of killed soldiers. So claims that Swedes lost 7000 kia and only 2500 wounded personaly I found as unbeleivable.
WTF? It's total crap David, no references to sources, no authors. I can create such page myself.
Last edited by Serb on 03-02-2003 at 11:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:25
|
|
I really don't have time to answer the rest of your post (and to be honest, don't have any desire to do it). Perhaps later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Just a quick 4:30 am response. I agree that those sources are not, taken alone, the most credible, but what are the odds of 6 different sources making up the same "obviously wrong" figure? I'd say not very high.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2003 12:08
|