We have the RTS games for that. Lol. As I said before we'll never know.OpsChief wrote:
I can go with that...sergeriver wrote:
Well, I suppose we should read the book. As a matter of fact I always thought that Soviets could have defeated Hitler alone. That's why I found this book interesting. But that's my opinion, and I think we will never know it.OpsChief wrote:
I said I didn't read the book and that I based my comments on the article but for some reason the last sentence you quoted me with is missing....I will say it again here to make clear "I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win. "
On the other hand you will find it interesting many years ago we ran a simulation that showed the Western Allies combined with a "freed" allied non-nazi Germany and China could have defeated the Soviet Union by 1948!!! lmao
I can't for the life of me remember why we ran it, but this topic reminded me of it.
To see what the USSR could have done v Germany alone look at strategic production/logistics and infrastructure values. The Russians may be able to defend against almost any single county in Winter but neither can they project forces succesfully outside their borders against a unified similarly equiped enemy.
quite right up until the last paragraph.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats a pretty huge chapter in an old book i read. from what Ive understood, german and the USSR were destined to fight and everybody in their respective countries knew that war was gonna happen. in all actuality (again from shit that Ive read personally, not no copy/paste) germany never wanted war with the UK. Germany's ultimate goal was france and the USSR so war was expected to happen. when Germany attacked they jumped the gun by a few years ( I think hitler planned the invasion of the USSR in 1944 before things got out of hand i guess)sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of the british isles would never have worked, I dont think. for one thing, the germans didnt have any decent amphibious capablities. Shit, their infantry wouldnt even have unloaded off of landing craft, they were floating in barges. and no way in hell an airborne assault would have worked. ask anybody (other than airborne troops), airborne operations are a logistical nightmare and people would be suprised if they were actually succesful.
I think the brits would have fended off the nazis for quite a long while and if american military forces were commited, i honestly dont think they could have taken the island. The soviet union had a huge army, but they could barely supply it. If it wasnt for american logistical support, they would have capitulated very early, I think, call me wrong...meh. human waves dont win wars and thats all the red army was, one massive human wave. Lets not forget, Russia was defeated by germany not even 30 years prior to ww2
The red army was a human wave in the begining, (not to mention the front line on the soviet side were not neccessarily friendly to USSR as their countries were just taken over by the communists). But the USSR did make thier own tanks, anti-tanks and self propelled arty, etc . However they did also use effectively the 5,000 shermans, multiple jeeps and aircraft given to them. However capitulating is taking it too far.
The Blitzkrieg was effective over the excellent transporation highways of France and Western Europe. USSR was full of swamps, muddy area's add to this the russian winter and no blitzkrieg. Also the T-34 and KV units was a complete suprised to Guedarian and the wehrmacht in general and were shortstopped due to weather, lack of paved highways and unexpected heavy soviet armor. The T-34 for example literaly ran over the PAK (towed anti-tank) units that were successful in stopping western ally tanks. Only the average tank conscript wasn't properly trained to use it more effectivly in the begining.
Lord guard and guide the ones who fly, beneath the deep and darkening sky.
Be with them, traversing the air; in raging storm or sunshine fair.
Be with them, traversing the air; in raging storm or sunshine fair.
Lol... anyone being a bit pedantic?MajorHoulahan_MASH wrote:
Vilham, if you disagree with him on the subject of the statement on food shipments and rations, you could have quoted just that, you did not have to include point 1 till 4...
Sorry but I can't stand to listen to this much longer... The German army was as technilogically advanced as the American army, if there was no western front the however many hundred thousand Americans would be up against an equal force with 3 MILLION men, we would not have won. NUMBERS DO MATTER. You are talking nearly identical strength armies but one is large... they are FAR more likely to win. Thanks to the Russians we fought only a small number of Germans compared to what would have been thrown against us.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the main reason I hate that statement is that fact that purportes the whole "numbers matter" thing that ercks me personally. casualty percentages is a really terrible way to base an argument on overall victory. i hate hearing death numbers thrown about so matter of factly, seriously, that 20% to 80% yadda yadda nonsense is silly. Like I said, only somebody who sees combat by casualty reports like this english scholar has no idea about military operations.
Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
However other than the plane example you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that without one of the smaller contributers we would have still likely won the war, without Russia we would have been fucked.
PS why is it always Americas who argue otherwise? Do you realy hate Russia without any due cause that much?
Russian air power was equal or as good as the Germans take planes like the IL-2 or the Mig 3 the LA-5 the LA-7 as well as the Yak 9 series and LAGG series the Yak9U-T actually had one of the most powerful fighter based cannons of WW2.Vilham wrote:
Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
However other than the plane example you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that without one of the smaller contributers we would have still likely won the war, without Russia we would have been fucked.
PS why is it always Americas who argue otherwise? Do you realy hate Russia without any due cause that much?
Lord guard and guide the ones who fly, beneath the deep and darkening sky.
Be with them, traversing the air; in raging storm or sunshine fair.
Be with them, traversing the air; in raging storm or sunshine fair.
The only right post here .JaggedPanther wrote:
D-Day prevented the soviet union from taking europe.
Many of the nazi's big failures had already happened (Stalingrad, Kursk, prokova, ) nothing but soviet hardware was rolling westward (the T-34 tank alone numbered 57,000 by the end of the war in 45). along with the T-34, the large 'animal killers' (Anti-tanks that were effective at knocking out tigers, panthers, elephants, etc) SU-85, ISU-152's, SU-122, followed by mobile AA, self propelled arty etc all rolling westward.
Other than that D-Day was propoganda for us in the west, simply because most of western history books were written while the soviet union was around. Thus you grew up with those books to reference on.
The western allies at the apex of their action only saw 10% of the Nazi army (and that was the most ever) most of the time they were fighting against less than 5% of the werhmacht.
D-Day prevented all of Europe from falling into Soviet hands and that itself is a huge accomplishment (since the soviet union stuck around for 50 years, could have been more if all of europe was red).
Bombing of industries helped the advance on both sides but the germans were producing far too less hardware (although more complex) to keep up with the allies even before the bombing began. Simple numbers in resources (such as rubber and other exotic items in that era, even oil), hardware, and manpower overran the nazi's. The last hope of the nazi's was Kursk and many of their big guns, panther tanks and hero's perished there.
I agree that US defeated Japan navy & emperial marines ( or whatever Japan's troops on the islands of Pasific Ocean were called ) , that US & UK bombers ruined to shit Germany's industry to the mid 44`, both crashed elite SS divisions in the vest after D-day . But the main number of nazi's ground army was destroyed by USSR , you all can't deny it .
And I'll also say that without US truck's & jeeps ( more then 1.5 million given to us as land-lise ) it was almost imposible . USSR did not had any good supply vehicles , they all were made and given by US .
But jets , tanks , artillery & so on staff were mostly made in USSR . A lot of fighters were given by US & UK though , such as Aircobra P-37 ( don't really remember if this number is correct ) , Hurricane , etc.
Lets also not forget US\UK convoys from Iceland to Murmansk ( via Northern Ocean ) , northern USSR port . Many brave US & UK seamans lost their lives b.c. of nazi's submarines & jets .
p/s 2 GunSlinger : to be honest , in WWI Russia was defeated by civil war , not Germany ... before the revolution began , russian army was offencing on the east front quiet effectively ; but when Nikolaj II was fallen army began to collapce .
Last edited by Longbow (2006-12-04 04:02:35)
Planes mean nothing, its about the people that fly them.spray_and_pray wrote:
Russian air power was equal or as good as the Germans take planes like the IL-2 or the Mig 3 the LA-5 the LA-7 as well as the Yak 9 series and LAGG series the Yak9U-T actually had one of the most powerful fighter based cannons of WW2.Vilham wrote:
Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
However other than the plane example you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that without one of the smaller contributers we would have still likely won the war, without Russia we would have been fucked.
PS why is it always Americas who argue otherwise? Do you realy hate Russia without any due cause that much?
Hitler defeated himself.
/win
I do not mean his suicide.
/win
I do not mean his suicide.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-04 06:13:25)
Do any other historians agree not much of a debate if only one man says it's true
and at the end of the day the fact that Hitler was stopped is far more important than who actually won the war a team effort even if not intended.
and at the end of the day the fact that Hitler was stopped is far more important than who actually won the war a team effort even if not intended.
numbers do matter.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the main reason I hate that statement is that fact that purportes the whole "numbers matter" thing that ercks me personally. casualty percentages is a really terrible way to base an argument on overall victory. i hate hearing death numbers thrown about so matter of factly, seriously, that 20% to 80% yadda yadda nonsense is silly. Like I said, only somebody who sees combat by casualty reports like this english scholar has no idea about military operations.
the Germans were THE most technologically advanced army in the world for the time. this is partly the reason they lost. towards the end of the war, German tanks had a 10:1 ratio (They lost one tank for every ten American/Russian tank destroyed) but their tank numbers in comparison were too small.
Panzer > Sherman
Tiger I/II > T-34
when it comes to the kind war they were waging, numbers are everything.
i shouldn't... butusmarine2007 wrote:
Hitler defeated himself.
/win
Yup. With operation Barbarossa.usmarine2007 wrote:
Hitler defeated himself.
/win
He left himself totally exposed fighting an extremely powerful enemy who outnumbered the Germans massively across a huge front, leaving the whole of Europe vulnerable to invasion. Which is what happened.
The Russians had the best tanks, many more troops and technology that didn't break every time it got a bit cold. Stalin possibly could have defeated Hitler without any intervention at all.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Hitler defeated himself.
/win
he may or may not have been referring to the fact that Hitler killed himself. either way, it works.Bertster7 wrote:
Yup. With operation Barbarossa.
True there, but...Bertster7 wrote:
He left himself totally exposed fighting an extremely powerful enemy who outnumbered the Germans massively across a huge front, leaving the whole of Europe vulnerable to invasion. Which is what happened.
|
v
nope.Bertster7 wrote:
The Russians had the best tanks,
yup.Bertster7 wrote:
many more troops and technology that didn't break every time it got a bit cold.
quite possibly, but it would've taken a few years longer.Bertster7 wrote:
Stalin possibly could have defeated Hitler without any intervention at all.
Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-12-04 06:12:32)
Who will win BF2 war ? USA, MEC, Chines ?
Look at your post which i deliberately quoted i might just quote it without quoting. "Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job." Now i tried to contribute that it was equal please read my post and the quote before it before replying.Vilham wrote:
Planes mean nothing, its about the people that fly them.spray_and_pray wrote:
Russian air power was equal or as good as the Germans take planes like the IL-2 or the Mig 3 the LA-5 the LA-7 as well as the Yak 9 series and LAGG series the Yak9U-T actually had one of the most powerful fighter based cannons of WW2.Vilham wrote:
Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job.
However other than the plane example you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that without one of the smaller contributers we would have still likely won the war, without Russia we would have been fucked.
PS why is it always Americas who argue otherwise? Do you realy hate Russia without any due cause that much?
wasn't it a stalemate of sorts?Mogura wrote:
Who will win BF2 war ? USA, MEC, Chines ?
(there is a fictional back-story posted somewhere here. search for it)
Shongua Stalemate ?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
wasn't it a stalemate of sorts?Mogura wrote:
Who will win BF2 war ? USA, MEC, Chines ?
(there is a fictional back-story posted somewhere here. search for it)
that map is mentioned in it, but somewhere on BF2s is a fan-fic that someone wrote.Mogura wrote:
Shongua Stalemate ?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
wasn't it a stalemate of sorts?Mogura wrote:
Who will win BF2 war ? USA, MEC, Chines ?
(there is a fictional back-story posted somewhere here. search for it)
Im saying the pilots are what matter not the planes, please use some comon sense. The Russians had poor pilots and thus lost more air battles against the Germans, it wasnt till the German planes froze up on the ground that the Russians could take their planes out.spray_and_pray wrote:
Look at your post which i deliberately quoted i might just quote it without quoting. "Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job." Now i tried to contribute that it was equal please read my post and the quote before it before replying.Vilham wrote:
Planes mean nothing, its about the people that fly them.spray_and_pray wrote:
Russian air power was equal or as good as the Germans take planes like the IL-2 or the Mig 3 the LA-5 the LA-7 as well as the Yak 9 series and LAGG series the Yak9U-T actually had one of the most powerful fighter based cannons of WW2.
Lord guard and guide the ones who fly, beneath the deep and darkening sky.Vilham wrote:
Im saying the pilots are what matter not the planes, please use some comon sense. The Russians had poor pilots and thus lost more air battles against the Germans, it wasnt till the German planes froze up on the ground that the Russians could take their planes out.spray_and_pray wrote:
Look at your post which i deliberately quoted i might just quote it without quoting. "Russian Airpower was weaker than the Germans until the winter when the German planes were stuck to the ground and therefore any plane would have done the job." Now i tried to contribute that it was equal please read my post and the quote before it before replying.Vilham wrote:
Planes mean nothing, its about the people that fly them.
Be with them, traversing the air; in raging storm or sunshine fair.
The germans were just streached to thin. I think it was a combineation of everyone the Germans were fighting against. I think if the Germans would have gone against Russia ALONE in the spring. it would be a different story.
55 min ago
HADITHA, Iraq (Reuters) - One Marine was killed and three servicemen were missing after a U.S. transport helicopter with 16 people on board made an emergency landing on water in western
Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said on Monday.
It said the Ch-46 twin-rotor Sea Knight, the Marine version of the Chinook, was carrying 16 personnel including the crew when it came down in volatile Anbar province, heartland of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
However, an Iraqi military intelligence official in Anbar province told Reuters the helicopter crashed early on Monday, an account backed up by residents who said it landed in Lake Qadisiya in Haditha, 250 km (150 miles) northwest of Baghdad.
The official, who asked not to be identified, said the helicopter had been shot down. It was on its way to rescue a group of U.S. soldiers who were attacked as they crossed the Euphrates River in boats, he said.
HADITHA, Iraq (Reuters) - One Marine was killed and three servicemen were missing after a U.S. transport helicopter with 16 people on board made an emergency landing on water in western
Iraq on Sunday, the U.S. military said on Monday.
It said the Ch-46 twin-rotor Sea Knight, the Marine version of the Chinook, was carrying 16 personnel including the crew when it came down in volatile Anbar province, heartland of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
However, an Iraqi military intelligence official in Anbar province told Reuters the helicopter crashed early on Monday, an account backed up by residents who said it landed in Lake Qadisiya in Haditha, 250 km (150 miles) northwest of Baghdad.
The official, who asked not to be identified, said the helicopter had been shot down. It was on its way to rescue a group of U.S. soldiers who were attacked as they crossed the Euphrates River in boats, he said.
^?
Xbone Stormsurgezz