 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They could have and should have, but didn't have the balls, because they were afraid of the backlash from their own pansy citizens who'd whine about another war. You had the NKVD for that, and Stalin didn't really have to be accountable to anybody. By the time Hitler was done in the west, had scrapped Sea Lion, and was heading through Greece and the Balkans, the writing on the wall should have been obvious.
|
I guess he had his own reasons. Soviet relationships with captalist countries weren't so warm before Germans invaded. Perhaps he just waited untill capitalists and fascists will destroy each other.
quote:
Troop training and combat doctrine counted for far more - look at Rasyeinya for one example - you didn't need a lot of stuff to deal with the Germans. Just a portion of what you had, applied competently, could have ripped the Panzertruppen from stem to stern. |
Sure. Old doctrines are worse than old weapons. I don't remember who said this.
But in that feild Germans were far ahead of anyone else.
Last edited by Serb on 24-06-2003 at 13:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
didn't the Bradley's take those out a few months ago?
And the Bradley has less range than the T72. What does that say about the T72? |
First of all I need confirmation. Untill I get it, I would consider this as fairytale. Sometimes, some manufacturers create a lot of amazing stories to sell their goods.
I heard that some Abrams were knocked out by anti-tank infantry weapons. What does that say about the Abrams?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
There is only one answer to nuclear attacks: Total War and massive retaliation. |
Historically the only Answer to a Nuclear Attack is immediate Surrender.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
about the original topic
I think its not so simple as this
Suppose Al Qaide had pulled off a nuclear explosion (this is for thinking about US reaction, I dont think they are close to this although they are probably trying).
What would be different today. No amounts of tanks would help to find Bin Laden or confirm his death or even hit harder the Al Qaida organization.
The thing is against terrorism, you dont really need taht many aircraft carriers, tank divisions and such.
Its more about intelligence, public relations, international policy making etc...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
 Why not kilometer? And why not T-34?
I guess T-90 can do the same with M60.
|
Unfortunately,
(a) You don't have T90s force wide.
(b) The performance of the Russian Army in Chechnya indicates that your line doggies aren't any better or more professional than the Soviet army in Afghanistan
(c) We just issue M60s to reserve units now, and even some of them have Abrams.
quote:
Yeah, and try to destroy turret of T-72 equiped with latest ERA and active defence system 'Arena'. General constructor of Abrams always looks like this smile-
" " (the same eyes) when he visit my home city and watch our active defense in action during military exchibition.
|
Civilians don't get to see things go "boom" much, so going is a natural response to the fun. Tankers in the US Army, though, are used to it, so they just go  "How many is that we've gotten so far?" 
quote:
Too bad that "superior" (my ass ) American tanks never had such system. And too bad that we don't sell it to him, no matter how hard he is begging for this.
|
We don't need to - we don't allow anyone on the battlefield to live long enough to hit us.
quote:
have a nice day. |
BTW, does that iraqwar.ru site still say how badly we're getting our asses kicked by the Iraqis, courtesy of all that Russian intelligence and real time intercepts of our secured communications?  I hope your "arena" system works better than your intelligence and comInt capabilities? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970
time: 06:29
|
|
In case anyone's interested in a couple of data sheets...
Share of world manufacturing output:
US
1929: 43.3%
1932: 31.8%
1937: 35.1%
1938: 28.7%
USSR
1929: 5.0%
1932: 11.5%
1937: 14.1%
1938: 17.6%
Germany:
1929: 11.1%
1932: 10.6%
1937: 11.4%
1938: 13.2%
Steel output in 1938:
US: 26.4 million tonnes
Germany: 20.7 million
USSR: 16.5 million
Please keep in mind, that output doesn't correctly reflect capacity because of the Great Depression. The US had enormous unutilised capacity, about 2/3's of its steel plant capacity wasn't utilised for instance. The economies of the USSR and Germany were operating near maximum in the later 30's. This would suggest US' steel capacity was 4 to 5 times as large as USSR's when WW2 began.
Tank production in 1944:
US: 17,500 (29,500 in 1943)
Germany: 17,800
USSR: 29,000
Accumulated aircraft production in 1939 to 1945:
US: 324,750 planes (biggest in a single year: 96.318 in '44)
USSR: 158,218 planes (40,300 in '44)
Germany: 117,881 planes (39,807 in '44)
USSR's manufacturing was affected less than the gains Germany made would suggest. Stalin had the foresight to locate the country's heavy industry near the Ural mountain chain, far out of range of Germany's war machine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
How do you retaliate against a terrorist organization which doesn't leave a return address? |
assuming the attack can be traced to al qaeeda, AQ's principle return address is the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. For now we are allowing the Pakistanis to deal with that, and and we are allowing them to take their time in dealing with it. Which makes sense - pressing them to deal with it too quickly or intervening directly could result in the dissolution of the Pakistani state, forcing a massive US (or coalition) intervention. Given the low level of AQ activity, steady progress in the global war against AQ cells, progress by the Pakistanis both directly against AQ in NWFP and more broadly in state-building, the patient approach makes sense - versus the direct costs of intervention and the broadening of the war to a "clash of civilizations"
Given a nuke attack traced to AQ however, it is possible that we would accept much higher costs to attack AQ directly in NWFP. This would probably require an invasion and occupation of Pakistan that would dwarf the invasion and occupation of Iraq. US ground forces, at least, would be subject to severe overstretch, even with substantial mobilization of national guard combat components. In that contingency a broader mobilization might be called for, though as others have pointed out, it would certainly look quite different from WW2.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
in fact our ground forces are close to overstretch now.
US army consists of 10 divisions, plus 2 airborne brigades and two armored cav regiments. Marine Corps consists of 4 divisions.
In Iraq we now have 4 army divisions 3rd ID, 4th ID, 101st AB, and 1st Armored. Plus 173rd AB brig and both arm cav regiments. Plus 1 Marine div. Plus some other combat elements.
IIUC, In pacific we have an Inf Div in Korea, a marine div Okinawa/Hawaii, and a another inf div on the west coast. Plus AB brig in Alaska. IIUC all are essentially in place for contingency on Korean peninsula.
Most of 82 airborne is in Afghanistan, fighting taliban/al qaeeda.
That leaves essentiall 3 army divisions (including 10th Mountain, recently rotated out of Afghanistan) and 2 marine divisions as entire strategic reserve.
In the event of large contigency elsewhere - Pakistan, Iran, or wherever - even assuming significant allied support - we'd be reducing our strat reserve unacceptably low - would have to mobilize NG combat divisions as strat reserve. IIUC NG have been mobilized for specialized support, or for force protection in CONUS. Pentagon has been reluctant since GW1 to use them as combat forces.
Gradual inflow of coalition forces into Iraq will allow 1st marine div to move back into CONUS, then maybe an army div. Still I think this is closest to overstretch we've been in a long time. (though i suppose it looks a lot different from USAF point of view)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Yeah right, using your aproach:
French with British support had enough forces to kick German ass and go to Berlin while bulk of Werchmaht was pretty busy chasing Polish divisions. Or they could invade earlier and don't kiss Hitler ass trying to please him in all possible ways- surrending Austria and Czehoslovakia to him, letting him to violate Versale treaty and letting him to create such war machine at the first place.
Those 21 months weren't wasted. Soviet Union started to re-arm its military. Most of the military designs that were used later were completed and put in mass production during this period. (T-34 and KV tanks or rocket artilery for example) |
They couldn't have successfully invaded Germany. They could have raided deep into Germany or overrun the Sudentanland - but while they had a lot of forces on paper, the reaility on the ground were hugh shortages of ammo, fuel, and above all training.
Neither side had done any significant planning or preparation for such an operation. If they had been ready to go, then maybe... but enough German units were on the Frontier to dissuade them otherwise.
Sending those UK/French forces off on a wild goose chase would have meant a much quicker conquest of France - meaning a quicker attack on the SU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Main_Brain
Historically the only Answer to a Nuclear Attack is immediate Surrender. |
Not for a country with enough capacity to destroy the Earth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
but there has been no historical precedence for that... yet |
Let's hope not.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2003 11:33
|