But the Mongols kinda beat the ruskies at their own game. Throw men at a problem until it goes away.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
they are the kind of easy quick sayings that make idiots feel educated because they saw a history channel specialMacbeth wrote:
The whole Russian winter destroying armies thing is a massive historical myth. The same with Afgahistan being the grave yard of empires.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-05-11 17:14:46)
Tu Stultus Es
The Russians performed a classic pincer movement against Paulus and then let winter do the rest before rolling ze Germans.
and the portions of what was produced and then used in the war by those two were...?HITNRUNXX wrote:
If you would prefer numbers:
Soviet Union Production throughout WWII was less than 1/3 of the United States...
and the numbers of nazi troops and war assets destroyed were...? and territory covered...?Around 11 Million Soviet soldiers died in WWII (not counting the 13 million civilians).
Around 500,000 Americans died during WWII on two different major fronts.
Manpower was the Russian contribution more than production.
-40 degree temperatures helped too.
Who beat the Nazi's? Hitler. History has proved time and again what normally happens when you try to march into Russia.
back to school. now.
Last edited by Shahter (2012-05-12 02:17:38)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I am doubting Napoleon and Hitler would agree with you.Macbeth wrote:
Those are just two off the top of my head. The whole Russian winter destroying armies thing is a massive historical myth. The same with Afgahistan being the grave yard of empires.
Those are just two off the top of my head...
Manpower + Being prepared for your own environment + that environment being harsh enough to kill people while you wait it out all seem like viable options.
Seeing a massive army fail at something, then attempting to do it the exact same way and expecting different results seems pretty crazy to me.
This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a agreed upon fact that Napoleon's army was destroyed by disease in the summer and fall. By the time Napleon made it to Moscow in December, his army of 400,000 was reduced down to 100,000.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I am doubting Napoleon and Hitler would agree with you.Macbeth wrote:
Those are just two off the top of my head. The whole Russian winter destroying armies thing is a massive historical myth. The same with Afgahistan being the grave yard of empires.
Those are just two off the top of my head...
Manpower + Being prepared for your own environment + that environment being harsh enough to kill people while you wait it out all seem like viable options.
Seeing a massive army fail at something, then attempting to do it the exact same way and expecting different results seems pretty crazy to me.
As you can see in graph made around the time, it was 30 degrees C when he set off. You can see the temperature fluctuations compared to the progress of the army at the bottom.
Here are some direct quotes
Add to those deaths the battles like this one which pealed off 30,000 men from Napoleon's army, and this one which peeled off a similar number. The constant harassment from peasants and cassocks. The starvation due to preparing enough supplies for a 40 day expedition. The deaths from exhaustion because of the forced marches, and poor diets. Lack of clean water. Dissertations and suicides peeled off more numbers. Also general accidents like 20,000 to 40,000 people drowning in a river reduced the army further. The winter's effect on the army was marginal in comparison.Authour of the book "The Illustrious Dead: The Terrifying Story of How Typhus Killed Napoleon's Greatest Army" wrote:
In the first week of the campaign alone, 6,000 men a day fell ill. "The numbers of the sick grew in overwhelming numbers, and they crawled along the road where many of them died," observed Belgian physician J.L.R. de Kerckhove.
Nicely done sir...
Also, according to several WWII books (Road to Stalingrad, being one), the Russians were actually outproducing their manpower on their western front. At Stalingrad, the guns outnumbered the soldiers by (best average from different books) about 3 to 1.
However, several other books claim this was the result of the fact that originally there were about 3 times more soldiers than gun, and because they were not all being issues guns, they were deserting in mass exodus style... This created a shortage of soldiers and a supply of guns. This also led Stalin to create "Order 227" which placed special units behind the front line, specifically to shoot anyone trying to leave the front.
So which is actually true? Chicken and egg scenario? Propaganda? I don't claim to know. I know there is a large amount of documentation that goes each way.
However, almost all of these state that Hitler's stubborn refusal to give up on Stalingrad is what ultimately cost him the war.
Also, according to several WWII books (Road to Stalingrad, being one), the Russians were actually outproducing their manpower on their western front. At Stalingrad, the guns outnumbered the soldiers by (best average from different books) about 3 to 1.
However, several other books claim this was the result of the fact that originally there were about 3 times more soldiers than gun, and because they were not all being issues guns, they were deserting in mass exodus style... This created a shortage of soldiers and a supply of guns. This also led Stalin to create "Order 227" which placed special units behind the front line, specifically to shoot anyone trying to leave the front.
So which is actually true? Chicken and egg scenario? Propaganda? I don't claim to know. I know there is a large amount of documentation that goes each way.
However, almost all of these state that Hitler's stubborn refusal to give up on Stalingrad is what ultimately cost him the war.
youve read Road to Stalingrad right
Tu Stultus Es
Yeah, it was a little one sided, but in my opinion had some of the best information. I don't remember all the numbers, but it laid out all the numbers from both sides that went into the battle. I used to be a huge history buff, but that was all about 15 years ago, and frankly, my memory is not what it used to be. I am talking about the John Erickson version, although I have another one around here somewhere (probably in a box in the garage) with the same name from the 50s, that was written by a Nazi survivor of the battle...
European theater, Hitler fucked himself in a multitude of ways.
East Asia, nothing says "game over" like being the only kid on the block touching off nuclear weapons.
East Asia, nothing says "game over" like being the only kid on the block touching off nuclear weapons.
The nuclear bombs definitely prevented millions from dying in Operation Downfall. However, the thousands of miles of enemy territory gained from island hopping was done with flamethrowers, hand grenades, and boats.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
The war was already over by then.rdx-fx wrote:
East Asia, nothing says "game over" like being the only kid on the block touching off nuclear weapons.
Fuck Israel
Japan was seeing what it could get out of a conditional surrender. The US wanted unconditional surrender, which it didn't want to sacrifice manpower to achieve. It took a second nuke before the emperor finally threw his hands up. Even afterwards, there were still Japanese fighting on islands around the Pacific and some who suicided rather than surrender.
Lesson: don't bomb Hawaii.
Lesson: don't bomb Hawaii.
Hands up shorty when you party with me, we goin' way past quarter to three
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
When you're #1 you gotta celebrate
rdx-fx wrote:
East Asia, nothing says "game over" like being the only kid on the block touching off nuclear weapons.
And it took TWO nukes to get the Japanese to understand that concept.Dilbert_X wrote:
The war was already over by then.
Emperor Hirohito would've probably surrendered, if his military leaders actually obeyed their Emperor honorably...unnamednewbie wrote:
Japan was seeing what it could get out of a conditional surrender. The US wanted unconditional surrender, which it didn't want to sacrifice manpower to achieve. It took a second nuke before the emperor finally threw his hands up. Even afterwards, there were still Japanese fighting on islands around the Pacific and some who suicided rather than surrender.
Lesson: don't bomb Hawaii.
His military leaders made that difficult.
Even to the point of staging a coup over the Emperor's surrender speech.
Note: credit to the Finnish special forces, for shit-canning the German's stockpile of heavy water, thereby permanently wrecking the German nuclear weapons program.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-05-13 06:50:34)
i thought it was the Norwegians who sabotaged the heavy water thingy.
You're so wrong.eleven bravo wrote:
Id say America is about 85% responsible for winning WWII
It was more like 82.5%.
Have to give the French their due credit.
Everyone always forgets the French...
Where did the French even get their bad reputation anyway? The French resistance was a huge help throughout the war.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Probably more the fact that they had the largest standing army in Europe at the beginning of the war and yet were defeated in 4 weeks.
Plus the last war they won by themselves was the French Revolution, beating yourself up doesn't exactly increase your standing among others after all.
Last edited by War Man (2012-05-13 20:05:58)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
France has one of the highest records for successful military campaigns.
its ok warman is home schooled.Adams_BJ wrote:
France has one of the highest records for successful military campaigns.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3282185rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
East Asia, nothing says "game over" like being the only kid on the block touching off nuclear weapons.And it took TWO nukes to get the Japanese to understand that concept.Dilbert_X wrote:
The war was already over by then.Emperor Hirohito would've probably surrendered, if his military leaders actually obeyed their Emperor honorably...unnamednewbie wrote:
Japan was seeing what it could get out of a conditional surrender. The US wanted unconditional surrender, which it didn't want to sacrifice manpower to achieve. It took a second nuke before the emperor finally threw his hands up. Even afterwards, there were still Japanese fighting on islands around the Pacific and some who suicided rather than surrender.
Lesson: don't bomb Hawaii.
His military leaders made that difficult.
Even to the point of staging a coup over the Emperor's surrender speech.
Note: credit to the Finnish special forces, for shit-canning the German's stockpile of heavy water, thereby permanently wrecking the German nuclear weapons program.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Between the fall of Rome and Waterloo, France was the military and social center of Europe.Adams_BJ wrote:
France has one of the highest records for successful military campaigns.
Except for that brief time the Germans controlled Spain but otherwise yeah.