|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-13-2009, 01:47 AM
Throwing masses of troops into machine guns and hopeing the enemy ran out of bullets before you ran out of malnurished troops doesn't really bespeak of sound tactical judgement. It's just a pure numbers game, I have more guys than you, I can afford to loose them and you can't, therefore I win.
It's more like suicidal chess, a really synical fighting style. The US never has played war that way, we perfer destroying as much of the enemy as possible before our troops even get there. Like how we bombed the German factories so they couldn't provide enough equipment for the eastern front. The US was key to winning WW2, It wasn't just the fighting part, it was the supply part, the US supplied the allies with pretty much everything after a certain point. It doesn't mean the US did all the heavy lifting persay, Russia certainly did a major amount of that, certainly more in blood than the US did I admit that. It simply means the US's role was the linchpin for the whole effort. Kinda like the Goal Keeper in Soccer, he isn't as active as the front guys are but you can't win without one. As to Nagasaki and Horishima, what's the point here? You don't think anyone else at that time wouldn't have used such weapons if they had gotten them first? I suppose the US got lucky on that score, allthough you can thank the German scientists that built it for them. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-13-2009, 02:19 AM
Except that USA wasn't a neighbor of Germany so their main way of attack was by bombing them. It doesn't work that way with neighbor countries because as you can see, they BOMB you too. You have to use your infantry when you're in that situation.
The US has never played war that way because they never were in that position. Don't come at talk to me about war tactics if you don't count the position of the territory to attack. Didn't your army teach you that? The US wasn't the key factor, they were an assistance. Whether the USA had intervened or not, The Nazi would have fallen in Stalingrad and Soviets would counterattack. 80% of Nazi's best military were there in Stalingrad. Soviet's role was the main one in the whole war.  Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-13-2009, 04:08 AM
Quote:
I don't know if you mean ever, or just in the world wars. They did it in the fight for independance against the British way back when. More recently, in the world wars, they had their fair share of trench fighting and pointless charges. Also, you'd have to really question whether D-Day was this style of attack or not. Anyway, the Russians only fought like that because they lacked the cavalry support to launch a proper offensive against the German heavy guns. Had they done a more tactical Infantry assault (I'm thinking Stalingrad, here, BTW) then the Germans would have just taken them apart. The reason they fought like this was trying to desperately take back large amounts of ground quickly, and it sometimes worked. Of course, in Stalingrad, the Russians were absolutely famous for their clever guerilla resistance with snipers and guerilla sections. Even non military militia resistance of people fighting for their city of their own will had good effect; so saying they were not strategical is not right, it's more just they didn't have the equipment to do it the better way, often. The point is, they still managed to do it, even against the odds. The eternal Saint is calling, through the ages she has told. The ages have not listened; the will of faith has grown old…
For forever she will wander, for forever she withholds; the Demon King is on his way, you’d best not be learned untold…
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-13-2009, 05:42 AM
It's not just a question of tactics. At certain times in Stalingrad, Soviet troops were paired up with each other; one would carry a gun, one would simply follow. The following soldier would wait for his lead to die, and then take up his weapon. If he didn't charge straight into certain death, a Soviet officer would gun him down.
In the Battle of Berlin, the Soviets treatment of both German soldiers and civilians was nothing short of horrific. 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' | Books | The Guardian . German units who were fleeing Berlin on the onset of the Soviet attack would purposefully surrender themselves to Allied troops, knowing that they'd be sent to forced labor camps or just outright killed by the Soviets. "In many areas of the city [Berlin], vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) looted, raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks". "Of the 91,000 German prisoners [at Stalingrad], only about 5,000 ever returned. Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent to labour camps all over the Soviet Union, where most of them died of disease (particularly typhus), cold, overwork, mistreatment, and malnutrition." "A study published by the German government in 1989 estimated the death toll of German civilians in eastern Europe at 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II, and 205,000 deaths in the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin." Do these things nullify the sacrifices made by the Soviet soldiers in World War II? Of course not. However, these things should be kept in mind before one starts praising the Red Army, and especially if one tries to change the entire point of the thread by bringing up Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-13-2009, 06:18 AM
Quote:
The eternal Saint is calling, through the ages she has told. The ages have not listened; the will of faith has grown old…
For forever she will wander, for forever she withholds; the Demon King is on his way, you’d best not be learned untold…
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-13-2009, 06:32 AM
Quote:
I know my platoon commander would have put a bullet between my eyes in a combat situation had I refused to follow orders, and that was modern day Australia. All armies are extremely hard on those who refuse their orders. The Russians wern't the only ones who sent people on almost suicidal missions. This is just another example of biased placed on Russia; although it's true, people say it as if they're the only ones who did/do it. Quote:
As for the prisoners, this is also very common, too. As for what else you expected from an Army that can barely feed it's own troops, I'm not sure. The pecking order would be clear at the mess hall; feed the officers, then the soldiers, then the civilians, then the dogs, then the prisoners. You seem to expect they'll give food to prisoners that they don't even have for their civilians... unrealistic. That so many Germans died only highlights the Soviets own personal struggle of the lengths they also had to go through to win. It's no big deal. Quote:
Fact is, most countries are guilty of what Russia did, but communism and the Soviet empire are the two great evils of the world... for what? The eternal Saint is calling, through the ages she has told. The ages have not listened; the will of faith has grown old…
For forever she will wander, for forever she withholds; the Demon King is on his way, you’d best not be learned untold…
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-13-2009, 10:57 AM
Quote:
You are incorrect. The colonial army did not have the manpower to play 'human wave' and their approach was most successfully marked by guerrilla warfare. The colonial army engaged the British in the manner common to open field warfare at the time only when circumstances suggested success was a plausible outcome.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-13-2009, 07:09 PM
The casualty rate then wasn't really high either, because those muskets weren't very acurate. The main fight happened during the bayonet charge. The US fought gorrila style most of the war. However, they had to defeat the British Army on the field, on their terms, if they wanted to get legitmate help from France.
If you can't beat a world power's professional army, on thier terms, you aint nothing as a country. It's allways been that way geopolitcally, the US wasn't respected for decades until they could proove they belonged with the other powers by beating one. The Spainish American war was the big one in that reguard. Japan had thier break out moment in the Russian war of 1904. The US didn't rape half of Vietnam, that's an outright lie. They may have had problems, but the whole army wasn't pillageing as an orcastrated action through the government like Russia was, or Germany for that matter, cause they did it as well. It's common knowledge that if you want to surrender to someone, your best option is America, cause your least likely to be massacred than if anyone else caught you. Japanese prisoners of war can attest to this. This whole thing is simple, Russia made a deal with Germany and Germany betrayed them, leaveing Russia with it's arse in the air. Russia spent the majority of it's youth and several years trying to regain what Germany took in 4 months. Yet with out the American support that Russia willingly recieved, it's debateable if they could have done it in that time span, if at all. I do agree that the fighting between Germany and Russia was bitter and hateful, wich is dramtically different from the fighting between Germany and the US, wich fought more along the traditional lines. I would suggest Russia and Germany reguarded each other the same way Japan and the US did at that time, and the fighting represented that.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Quote:
No, the War of 1812 was.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
