Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18

 

2006-12-02 15:07:53
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|7010|USA

^*AlphA*^ wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Techworld wrote:

We (UK) won
We (US) won...

You (UK) helped a hell of a lot though...

my point, US/UK FTW.
get back to History Class


that you had a place in the victory, agree.... but still, all the other people did nothing or what ?
Both of you are wrong. ('cept you alpha; being a mod exempts you from wrongness jk) Neither side (UK v US) single handedly won the war. British ferocity in defending their country (which played in no small part to the defiance of their citizens, much is to be commended for their bravery), yet without Americas supplies, as well as their baptism of fire on D-Day (USA did have the hardest beaches to capture; I will argue all who dispute that. [I will, however, cede that UK did have serious airborne difficulties w/ regards to flooded areas, etc]), who knows how the war would've swung.

Please this is called D&S, not see-who-can-alienateothersbysayinghiscountry'sthebest contest. THey said "keep a level head" for a reason.
2006-12-02 15:10:00
~c4~cheppi
Member
+29|6714|Forest Green
The 3 main reasons the Russia was able to fend Germany in my opinion were:

1: Many German soliders held up by the Allies on the western front. I think 350,000 troops were kept in Norway, because of the threat of invasion
2: Russian Winter
3: Japan's attack on USA, Many Russian troops were in Eastern Russia, because of suspected Japanese invasion

If you want to be picky you can say both the US and the Uk were invaded in the war (channel islands, some place called Wake)

However as I'm British, it was mainly to us winning the war, Worlds biggest navy at the time, relativly small but probably best airforce....
2006-12-02 15:13:32
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|7010|USA

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


And in many ways... luck.
What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...
For a long time, the U.K. had the best Navy for sure.  I think that changed after WW2.  I would say your Air Force is also very good (demonstrated primarily during WW1 and WW2), but again, I think ours is better.
i think it changed shortly after the Revolutionary war
2006-12-02 15:14:48
dubbs
Member
+105|6988|Lexington, KY
I would love to compare the number of Nazis who died because of the cold weather in Russia instead of actual Russians.  I was just recently watching a show on the History Channel that stated that most of the Nazis loses in the Eastern Front were not because of the Russians but because the army was not ready for the cold weather.  Remember Hitler thought that he would defeat Russia by September, but the battle went much longer.  The Nazis did not have the proper oil for their weapons, and proper clothing.  I think that the author probally did not take this into the equation, but just went with a generic number from the Eastern Front.

BTW, I think that if Hitler did not get to excited, and choose to fight Russia, then go to the Western Front, or vise versa, as he orginally planned, we would be a very different world today.
2006-12-02 15:16:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

R0lyP0ly wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:


What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...
For a long time, the U.K. had the best Navy for sure.  I think that changed after WW2.  I would say your Air Force is also very good (demonstrated primarily during WW1 and WW2), but again, I think ours is better.
i think it changed shortly after the Revolutionary war
Much as I'd like to claim that, there is no doubt in my mind that the U.K. did have the most powerful Navy in the world from roughly 1700 to about 1940.  They would have undoubtedly put up one hell of a fight against the Nazies without us, but without either us or Russia to aid them, they would have been defeated in WW2.
2006-12-02 15:19:05
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|7010|USA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

exactly, Tactics, not numbers are how wars have been won.
While i wholeheatedly agree with everything else you've said, i feel compelled to revise your statement -- tactics offset a huge imbalance in force, but overwhelming numbers can surely circumvent even the best contingency plan. Keep in mind, though, that you have first-hand experience, and I do not. I guess I may be wrong, but that is what i feel logically must be true.

btw- thank you for what you do.
2006-12-02 15:21:35
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|7010|USA

Turquoise wrote:

R0lyP0ly wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


For a long time, the U.K. had the best Navy for sure.  I think that changed after WW2.  I would say your Air Force is also very good (demonstrated primarily during WW1 and WW2), but again, I think ours is better.
i think it changed shortly after the Revolutionary war
Much as I'd like to claim that, there is no doubt in my mind that the U.K. did have the most powerful Navy in the world from roughly 1700 to about 1940.  They would have undoubtedly put up one hell of a fight against the Nazies without us, but without either us or Russia to aid them, they would have been defeated in WW2.
Powerful, yes. Most powerful? idk...i just seem to think if they had the best army/navy, the we'da lost the war, yet we didn't. UK would've put up a fight, but i believe that it would most likely have been  a purely defensive one, and, in the end, Britain would've lost due to logistical/supply reasons. I'm glad Hitler was a dumbass and rescinded the Russian armistic, otherwise we might still be in Europe!
2006-12-02 15:23:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

R0lyP0ly wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Much as I'd like to claim that, there is no doubt in my mind that the U.K. did have the most powerful Navy in the world from roughly 1700 to about 1940.  They would have undoubtedly put up one hell of a fight against the Nazies without us, but without either us or Russia to aid them, they would have been defeated in WW2.
Powerful, yes. Most powerful? idk...i just seem to think if they had the best army/navy, the we'da lost the war, yet we didn't. UK would've put up a fight, but i believe that it would most likely have been  a purely defensive one, and, in the end, Britain would've lost due to logistical/supply reasons. I'm glad Hitler was a dumbass and rescinded the Russian armistic, otherwise we might still be in Europe!
They lost because we and France fought together.  We fought them here, and France fought them in Europe.
2006-12-02 15:28:06
venom6
Since day One.
+247|6915|Hungary
Just think on this..what would happen if Japan dont attack USA ?
Would Usa join WW2 ?
And for example they attack Russia on the west side then germany from the east and this would happen..
Russia fails
Uk fails
Usa would fail because of the 2 sided attack

In short Usa survived and made a lot of $$$ from both wars.America is like a bit Uk far away on a safe place.Nobody wants to cross the atlantic ocean so again...Usa dont had amazing bombings on the civil cities or factoris.And they tested 2 nuclear bombs on Japan...wasnt the first one not enough ???
Why the fuck was important to drop the 2nd one ?
And remember..if Usa could not steal all german professors who were working on the nuclear bomb...prolly germany would drop it on Usa...intresting situation huh ?

And no im not defending the germans...i know if Hitler is winning...the whole EU would be a part of the 3rd Reich....maybe good maybe not who knows...
2006-12-02 15:28:47
D34TH_D34L3R
Member
+48|7173|Belgium
Just face it: everybody helped.
US played a key part in the victory over the Nazi's.
So did the UK. So did the French. So did the Russians.

And none of these countries would've won the war on their own.
The discussion who played the greater part in the war doesn't really matter.
The fact is that the US gets almost all of the credit for winning.
While the US wouldn't have won without the UK or Russia or the French.

And as for the reasoning about numbers/tactics.
If you do not have the numbers, you will need the tactics.
And history shows that tactics can overcome any army even though they have greater numbers.

and Venom6: your post is VERY correct. The question whether or not the US would 've joined the 2nd World War is indeed a good question.
As for the nulcear bombs on Japan: The first was the test, the second was to show the Communist Russians that they have really big penisses.. Uh, I mean bombs. Since they realized that the Communists wanted to keep their part of the now "Freed Europe". And the US was simply scared of Communism since they saw it as their enemy.
So actually the use of 2 nuclear bombs on Japan was the 'real' start of the Cold War.

Last edited by D34TH_D34L3R (2006-12-02 15:38:34)

2006-12-02 15:31:03
WilhelmSissener
Banned
+557|7089|Oslo, Norway
Too bad D-Day was so late...
2006-12-02 15:32:43
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7000

R0lyP0ly wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

exactly, Tactics, not numbers are how wars have been won.
While i wholeheatedly agree with everything else you've said, i feel compelled to revise your statement -- tactics offset a huge imbalance in force, but overwhelming numbers can surely circumvent even the best contingency plan. Keep in mind, though, that you have first-hand experience, and I do not. I guess I may be wrong, but that is what i feel logically must be true.

btw- thank you for what you do.
thanks man. but I stand by my statement (if i dont believe that I might as well start learning chinese),but you do have a valid point.  American and most (if not all) NATO nations follow the 3-to-1 rule when it comes to being on the offense.  Ideal combat conditions require the friendly to enemy ratio be 3-to-1 in order to commence any kind of operations, at least thats the IDEAL situation.  that means commanders cannot even consider a plan of attack unless the situation meets that criteria. I wish i could share a whole lot of interesting stuff that would be pretty tight to know, but every body has an internet connection these days.  but yeah, you got a point NUMBERS have priority over TACTICS when it comes to offensive operations, in the book, but the reality of it aint always by the book.
2006-12-02 15:34:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

venom6 wrote:

Just think on this..what would happen if Japan dont attack USA ?
Would Usa join WW2 ?
Yes, but it would've taken longer for us to commit to it.

venom6 wrote:

In short Usa survived and made a lot of $$$ from both wars.America is like a bit Uk far away on a safe place.Nobody wants to cross the atlantic ocean so again...Usa dont had amazing bombings on the civil cities or factoris.And they tested 2 nuclear bombs on Japan...wasnt the first one not enough ???
Why the fuck was important to drop the 2nd one ?
And remember..if Usa could not steal all german professors who were working on the nuclear bomb...prolly germany would drop it on Usa...intresting situation huh ?

And no im not defending the germans...i know if Hitler is winning...the whole EU would be a part of the 3rd Reich....maybe good maybe not who knows...
Yes, there were American companies that profitted immensely from the war, and unfortunately, these same companies try to get us to engage in war more often.

However, it was very necessary for us to nuke Japan twice.  They didn't surrender after the first time, so there you go.  We had to deal with Japan this way in order to prevent us from losing even more soldiers.  This resulted in the deaths of thousands of Japanese, but quite frankly, they earned that from the way they treated East Asia.  The Japanese should be grateful we didn't wipe them from the map.

We didn't steal professors from Germany.  They fled the country.  Others sabotaged their own government's programs because they knew how evil Hitler was.

I can assure you that a Nazi EU would be horrible and even worse than the Soviet Union was.
2006-12-02 15:35:38
_lecro_
Banned
+4|6837

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Techworld wrote:

We (UK) won
We (US) won...

You (UK) helped a hell of a lot though...

my point, US/UK FTW.
Shut up you tit, UK stood the ground alone for 3 years until you idiots decided to get involved
2006-12-02 15:37:20
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7122|UK
Where I said 40-50 wars I meant more like 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history

As to why America won the war of independance.. its called fighting like 50 million wars at once against the whole world.
2006-12-02 15:38:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

_lecro_ wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Techworld wrote:

We (UK) won
We (US) won...

You (UK) helped a hell of a lot though...

my point, US/UK FTW.
Shut up you tit, UK stood the ground alone for 3 years until you idiots decided to get involved
It's good to know you appreciate the help.
2006-12-02 15:40:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

Vilham wrote:

Where I said 40-50 wars I meant more like 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history

As to why America won the war of independance.. its called fighting like 50 million wars at once against the whole world.
I definitely agree with the second comment.  America got very lucky in many ways.

As for the first part, I think Britain's military history is very impressive, but Germany was throwing forces at them like never before.  Germany was considerably more powerful than Britain during WWII, which is why it took 3 major nations to defeat them.
2006-12-02 15:41:13
D34TH_D34L3R
Member
+48|7173|Belgium

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Where I said 40-50 wars I meant more like 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history

As to why America won the war of independance.. its called fighting like 50 million wars at once against the whole world.
I definitely agree with the second comment.  America got very lucky in many ways.

As for the first part, I think Britain's military history is very impressive, but Germany was throwing forces at them like never before.  Germany was considerably more powerful than Britain during WWII, which is why it took 3 major nations to defeat them.
Actually Hitler was rather conservative with the forces that he used against the UK.
2006-12-02 15:41:56
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7000

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Where I said 40-50 wars I meant more like 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history

As to why America won the war of independance.. its called fighting like 50 million wars at once against the whole world.
I definitely agree with the second comment.  America got very lucky in many ways.
thats an entirely different topic right there that I wouldnt mind jumping on

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-02 15:42:43)

2006-12-02 15:44:00
Stealth42o
She looked 18 to me officer
+175|7028
The Russians had more causalities than the American, UK, France and Germans combined.  I think they get a lot of credit for what they did.  The war would have been lost without them.
2006-12-02 15:44:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6761|North Carolina

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Where I said 40-50 wars I meant more like 200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history

As to why America won the war of independance.. its called fighting like 50 million wars at once against the whole world.
I definitely agree with the second comment.  America got very lucky in many ways.

As for the first part, I think Britain's military history is very impressive, but Germany was throwing forces at them like never before.  Germany was considerably more powerful than Britain during WWII, which is why it took 3 major nations to defeat them.
Actually Hitler was rather conservative with the forces that he used against the UK.
Perhaps, I should have rephrased that.  Without Russia fighting them at the same time, Germany could have thrown a massive amount of forces at Britain.

That's probably a more accurate way to describe what I mean.
2006-12-02 15:45:44
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7114|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I definitely agree with the second comment.  America got very lucky in many ways.

As for the first part, I think Britain's military history is very impressive, but Germany was throwing forces at them like never before.  Germany was considerably more powerful than Britain during WWII, which is why it took 3 major nations to defeat them.
Actually Hitler was rather conservative with the forces that he used against the UK.
Perhaps, I should have rephrased that.  Without Russia fighting them at the same time, Germany could have thrown a massive amount of forces at Britain.

That's probably a more accurate way to describe what I mean.
And most of EU would be speaking German.
2006-12-02 15:47:40
D34TH_D34L3R
Member
+48|7173|Belgium

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:


Actually Hitler was rather conservative with the forces that he used against the UK.
Perhaps, I should have rephrased that.  Without Russia fighting them at the same time, Germany could have thrown a massive amount of forces at Britain.

That's probably a more accurate way to describe what I mean.
And most of EU would be speaking German.
Ah, then I agree with you Turquoise.
And I also agree with the statement of Sergeriver:)
2006-12-02 15:49:56
venom6
Since day One.
+247|6915|Hungary
To D34TH_D34L3R: Remember that France capitulated in 1940 and the german troops moved along the streets of Paris.

To Turquoise: Nope your wrong in some things.A lot of german,hungarian professors scientists were taken by the US troops to USA.They kinda stole them...they offered them to work for them in the usa for more money etc and ofc all professors said ok.Is Oppenheimer or Ede Teller american ?
Guess not..so clearly Usa did what he allways have done...brain stealing.
All big american scientists are from some european country...
And about the Soviet Union you cant say your opinion coz u dont livd in it.You dont know how it was.
My country was pushed several times into mud....ww1,ww2,germans,soviets,communist dictature for over 40 years...so you have no idea what things happend here...
2006-12-02 15:51:22
Mr.Casual
p-n*|3eergogglz
+136|6865|Minnesota eh

Mr.Casual wrote:

Who cares what the awnser is. They all helped, doesnt matter if one helped more.
I'll reiterate.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard