Iuchi_Zien Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 [/b] What do you think an army moves on? Have you ever served in any army? The General Motors 2-1/2 ton truck was the work horse of all the allied armies. A million of them served in every theatre of operations in WW2 The Russians may have had an abundance in tanks and artillery but they definitely did not have the means to move armies of millions of men around battlefields along with vital supplies in quick order without adequate transport and that can mean the difference between victory and total defeat in any battle . Even when the Red Army entered Germany in 1945 some of them were still moving soldiers in horse drawn carts. One German civilian looking at convoys of ragged Tartars and Mongols riding in carts with women following behind remarked "how could we have been beaten by an army such as this" Well the fact is they werent beaten by an army like that. They were beaten by an army that moved aboard the good old Jimmy truck If you consider that what was sent to the Russians was "crap" then I assume that includes Spitfires and Hurricanes as well What a pile of <insert obscenity of your choice> This is just typical of the US attitude to war. The Russian army moved on its FEET, it WALKED, something the US seem to have forgotten how to do. You know the same way that the Viet kong defeated the US army? Perhaps this would explain why the US army had so much trouble fighting in the jungle, "Hey where are the roads man! You mean we have to WALK!" You show your complete ignorance of the war on the Eastern Front with comments like The Russians may have had an abundance in tanks and artillery but they definitely did not have the means to move armies of millions of men around battlefields along with vital supplies in quick order without adequate transport and that can mean the difference between victory and total defeat in any battle The Russians used a completely different form of resupply to Western armies, as you would know if you actually made the effort to find out. Russian resupply ONLY included ammunition and, sometimes, food. Forces were kept in the field until out of supply or virtually destroyed and then, what was left was removed from the front line and rebuilt and resupplied. Resupply was not a problem for the Russians as they had a VERY effective rail network which the Germans continually failed to understand or destroy. A mistake you also appear to have made. Once removed from the railways supplies were moved by cart or carried on soldiers backs which again you would know if you made an effort to learn about the Eastern Front. It may be basic and crude but it works. As to the aircraft supplied lets look at what they were given Hurricanes, by 1942 they were obsolete, easily out performed by the Bf109's being used by the Germans, like the Spitfire and the P-40's being sent, dependant upon paved runways, something the Russian aircraft, which were capable against the latest German aircraft, didn't need. The majority, an exception being the Aerocobra, were armed with machine guns, considered by the Russians to be ineffective in the ground attack role for which the Russian airforce was used. Spitfire Mk IX, the majority of the Spitfires sent, were sent after 01/45 when the UK forces were using Mk XVI and the Mk IX was completely incapable of engaging the latest forms of Fw/Ta and Bf's. They again required paved runways and were considered VERY fragile by the Soviet pilots who flew them, which you would know if you made any effort to research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 you mean the fake war? you saying american won the cold war? Nothing "fake" about the Cold War - and yes - the USSR and the Eastern Bloc imploded. Ever met and talked to anyone from the other side of the Iron Curtain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Nothing "fake" about the Cold War - and yes - the USSR and the Eastern Bloc imploded. Ever met and talked to anyone from the other side of the Iron Curtain? Yes, and you would be amazed how many of them wish they were back under Communist rule. When a job meant a job for life, when you had far fewer old, disabled and ill wandering the streets. When you didn't risk being murdered because you had a government flat in a 'wealthy' area of Moscow. When the Russian Mafia was what the government was called, not what you called the people who RAN the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 war is bad for business. Everyone that isn't a probably Marxist influenced pre-programmed idiot knows that. Which is why every country in the world educates its best and brightest, to try to avoid it, if they possibly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 What a pile of <insert obscenity of your choice> This is just typical of the US attitude to war. The Russian army moved on its FEET, it WALKED, something the US seem to have forgotten how to do. You know the same way that the Viet kong defeated the US army? Perhaps this would explain why the US army had so much trouble fighting in the jungle, "Hey where are the roads man! You mean we have to WALK!" You show your complete ignorance of the war on the Eastern Front with comments like The Russians may have had an abundance in tanks and artillery but they definitely did not have the means to move armies of millions of men around battlefields along with vital supplies in quick order without adequate transport and that can mean the difference between victory and total defeat in any battle The Russians used a completely different form of resupply to Western armies, as you would know if you actually made the effort to find out. Russian resupply ONLY included ammunition and, sometimes, food. Forces were kept in the field until out of supply or virtually destroyed and then, what was left was removed from the front line and rebuilt and resupplied. Resupply was not a problem for the Russians as they had a VERY effective rail network which the Germans continually failed to understand or destroy. A mistake you also appear to have made. Once removed from the railways supplies were moved by cart or carried on soldiers backs which again you would know if you made an effort to learn about the Eastern Front. It may be basic and crude but it works. As to the aircraft supplied lets look at what they were given Hurricanes, by 1942 they were obsolete, easily out performed by the Bf109's being used by the Germans, like the Spitfire and the P-40's being sent, dependant upon paved runways, something the Russian aircraft, which were capable against the latest German aircraft, didn't need. The majority, an exception being the Aerocobra, were armed with machine guns, considered by the Russians to be ineffective in the ground attack role for which the Russian airforce was used. Spitfire Mk IX, the majority of the Spitfires sent, were sent after 01/45 when the UK forces were using Mk XVI and the Mk IX was completely incapable of engaging the latest forms of Fw/Ta and Bf's. They again required paved runways and were considered VERY fragile by the Soviet pilots who flew them, which you would know if you made any effort to research. Glad I wasn't in the Russian army then. It was an army of barbarians led by an able but brutal commander, Zhukov subservient to a bloodthirsty tyrant, Stalin. Millions of Russian soldiers died in mass suicidal attacks against German positions, thousands more were shot for the slightest hint of cowardice. Attacks against German positions were often at gunpoint. NKVD units with machine guns behind them. Germans in front. Neither Stalin Zhukov or Konev cared a jot about the tragic slaughter of ordinary soldiers. Stalin encouraged an intense rivaly between Zhukov and Konev to see which one of them could take Berlin first. 50,000 Russian lives were lost in that battle for the city alone. As I've mentioned before though if Hitler had not had Britain and America to fight he could have wiped Stalin off the face of the earth. It was only because of fighting a two front war and overwhelming odds in manpower in favour of the bloodthirsty Russian leaders that they did not prevail but they kicked a lot of Russian ass before they had to quit. You appear to place yourself as some kind of big authority on how effective the Americans were "not" in beating the Germans but far better scholars than you have stated that when Hitler declared war on the US in December 1941 that was the day he lost the war even though at that time he was still winning on the eastern front. Personally I think that like Churchill and other western leaders it was hoped that when Germany attacked Russiia in June 1941 that these two despicable bloodthirsty barbarian regimes would destroyl each other like two wild animals. As it turned out the Red barbarians were a threat for another fifty years before their crap, falling apart, corrupt army packed up and left East Germany and the rest of that part of Europe much to the joy of all concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Yes, and you would be amazed how many of them wish they were back under Communist rule. When a job meant a job for life, when you had far fewer old, disabled and ill wandering the streets. When you didn't risk being murdered because you had a government flat in a 'wealthy' area of Moscow. When the Russian Mafia was what the government was called, not what you called the people who RAN the government. When there was a Stasi informant on every street in East Berlin - when the lads who came over to the mining college in Doncaster from the East all wanted to stay over here. Like when the USSR used to send the tanks in to anywhere in the East that objected to Soviet rule - or send people to the Gulgags - like the "old, disabled and ill wandering the streets". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 You appear to place yourself as some kind of big authority on how effective the Americans were "not" in beating the Germans but far better scholars than you have stated that when Hitler decared war on the US in December 1941 that was the day he lost the war even though at that time he was still winning on the eastern front. Hitler was such a numbskull. Like Stalin, they were both poor military commanders. Because they were dictatorships, they couldn't possibly allow the professional soldiers to get on with winning the war. Churchill and Roosevelt were luckier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 [QUOTE=Iuchi_Zien;7778704]Yes, and you would be amazed how many of them wish they were back under Communist rule. When a job meant a job for life, when you had far fewer old, disabled and ill wandering the streets. When you didn't risk being murdered because you had a government flat in a 'wealthy' area of Moscow. When the Russian Mafia was what the government was called, not what you called the people who RAN the government. Yes it must have been a wonderful life. Lining up for hours for food from government controlled stores. Ten year waiting list for a cheap car that was a bucket of bolts Always shortages of such commodities as shoes manufactured in government controlled factories and when they did arrive they were all the same style and color. A neighbour who could be a kGB informer. Living in a crap government apartment that made an LCC flat look like luxury living by comparison Wondering or hoping that you might get some news for a relative or family member away in some Gulag. Oh yes it was utopia alright and dont give me that garbage about people wanting Communism back. Its only a bunch of old farts and laid off KGB functionaries who yearn for those days They're a dying breed. Russia belongs to the young who were born after the collapse of the workers paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 communism is dead in Europe. Which is absolutely and totally fantastic. Maybe the battle of Kursk, wasn't in vain, after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 You appear to place yourself as some kind of big authority on how effective the Americans were "not" in beating the Germans but far better scholars than you have stated that when Hitler decared war on the US in December 1941 that was the day he lost the war even though at that time he was still winning on the eastern front. Hitler was such a numbskull. Like Stalin, they were both poor military commanders. Because they were dictatorships, they couldn't possibly allow the professional soldiers to get on with winning the war. Churchill and Roosevelt were luckier. Hitler though himself Alexander the Great while Stalin, nasty little gnome that he was started to listen to his military commanders after he tried to run the war himself and nearly brought the Red army to it's knees. Stalin was intensly jealous of Zhukov and after the war Zhukov disappeared into obscurity fortunate that the paranoid Stalin never accused him of some counter revolutionary plot and had him shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.