|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-06-2009, 08:47 PM
Quote:
And the British were winning against Rommel and after his defeat everything started to go downhill for Germany (retreating). USA came in and fought with weakened countries, so please consider that. Would have been very different if USA was since the start. Judging from a military standpoint, USA was the least probable country to get attacked. Germany had too much going on in Europe to mess with them. Only Japan attacked them but they were defeated. And believe me if USSR went alone since the start against Japan they would've won.  Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-06-2009, 10:37 PM
Quote:
For me the most "heroic" unit in WW2 were the Tuskeegee airmen. An African American fighter squadron. These guys were sent into Europe to escort bombers in and out of Europe. They were essentially looked down upon by most of the US army and the majority of their country simply because they were black.... yet they were the most successful fighter squadron in Europe. They were the only fighter squadron to NEVER lose a bomber to the Luftwaffe.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-07-2009, 06:32 PM
The US has nearly a third of the world's natural resources and a large population, plus 2 oceans between it and everyone else. Two oceans that they were able to transport 15 million troops across in 4 years, that's a major thing in and of itself.
We also fight with a type of scorched earth policy like Russia does, only instead of burning ourselves out of house and home, we burn our enemies out of thiers. So yes, the US had the ability and the will at that time, to defeat both Germany and Japan alone. It would have taken longer and cost more American lives, but it was doable. I won't deny the Russians were both brave and tenacious, those are true. They also tied up several German divisions, that's also true. However, we have to remember that Germany wasn't run by it's generals, it was run by one guy. Russia was strongly aided by the fact Hitler wouldn't listen to his generals, if he had, it would have been far different. Russia was both technologically behind Germany and had fewer resources to play with. ( Siberia, while resource rich, was difficult to get to then) Case in point, Custer would have won Little Bighorn if he just waited for the 3,000 infantry that were a day away. He didn't and the rest is history. As to Britain, it was on it's last legs, on the verge of defeat, Churchill managed to tweek Hitler into stopping his military attacks and intiate the "Bomb London" fiasco during the Battle of Britain. That turned the tide in air power and Germany was never able to recover. Again, this was due to Hitler being a idiot. The US historically, has a tendency to loose interest in things over seas, it's why our wars are generally stupid things like Vietnam. Kinda like Godzilla, not sure if it wants to do what it's doing or not, so we end up doing things haphazzardly. Even then, there isn't a country that we have sent troops to who weren't deeply effected by it. Look at Somlia, most Americans don't even remember haveing troops there, better believe the Somlalis do. Again like Gozillia, smash the place up a little, loose interest or forget why we there, and leave. Almost like a force of nature. However, if the US is really focused and really angery enough, they can completely destroy countries. I don't mean little ones like Afganistan either, I mean major players like a Russia or Germany. Japan's generals, those who had been to the US. Didn't want to attack the US, knowing what it was capable of if motivated enough. Guess what Pearl Harbor did?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-07-2009, 09:33 PM
Quote:
Anyway, as for back then, Germany's technology was superior to all the allies, not just Russia. Their tanks alone were the best at the time. As for taking out Germany and Japan alone, I doubt... unless they used some nuclear power, which would've caused damage to other countries in Europe as well. Too risky. Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-08-2009, 03:59 AM
Yes, I'm serious about Russia, thier missles would never get here. My brothers AF intel, the US has stuff weapon wise that we haven't even deployed yet, we could we just don't. Those "Future Weapons" shows you can watch on History Channle? Those are old weapons already, you wouldn't have top secret weapons that were currently being developed, shown on a public tv show. It's just like the 117 Stealth, that thing is nearly 30 years old allready, we have much better stuff than that we are working on.
Our radar systems for our anti missles systems can detect the rotation of a basketball thrown into the air in Miami, from New York. Many people suspect that we are upset about North Korea's missle launches, not because they pose a threat, but because it could force us to reveal just how capable our anti missle system really is. It is true that Germany had better stuff, but they were slow in building it. The Germans managed to build 1100 tigers, the US built over 40,000 Shermans..and that was just the Shermans. This has nothing to do with who was braver or had better generals, all the sides had both brave troops and good generals. It boils down to numbers, the US had them to such a dagree that Germany and Japan couldn't keep up. Consider this, your a chess master with a regular set of chess pieces. Your opponant is also a chess master, but he has 5 times the number of pieces. Not only that, for every one piece you manage to replace, he can replace 5. Plus, as the match wears on, he is able to increase the number of replacements by 6, then 7, then 8..while you loose the ability to even replace the one. Who do you think will win? The same thing happened to the South during it's war with the North. Lee's 85,000 would meet the Union's 100,000. Lee was a better general, so he could out battle the slightly larger army. However, he couldn't replace his losses and the North could. By the end he had 40,000 tired, beraggled troops and the North had 100,000, just in that army faceing him..they had several other armies roaming around as well by that time...includeing one that went through Georgia.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Ryzorian
Your estimations of US military technological superiority is exaggerated at best. Furthermore such advanced tech is not really an accurate measure of power in a post cold-war climate. PS- I think US concern over North Korean missiles has more to do with the balance of power situation in East Asia rather than anything to do with forcing the US to reveal it's capabilities....
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-08-2009, 11:58 AM
Quote:
Lovely thread. Nobody could give any real evidence that OP`s point was wrong. Well done, kids. Keep it up!
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-08-2009, 12:21 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-08-2009, 06:37 PM
My estimation of Us military tech isn't exargerated at all. I'm ex army and have actually seen some of this stuff in action on manovers. So take that as you will, but I have actual hands on experiance and that was from stuff back during the 1991 war, most of wich is outdated today.
Russia has a tough and hard people no doubt, but their biggest claim to fame is a large land area and cold winter combineing to defeat stupid foes. It's like the case of the bear attack, I don't actually have to out run the bear to live, I just have to out run you. Russians knew how to survive in that enviroment, the Germans didn't, case closed. Russia "defeated" Napolean the same way, burn everything and run away and let mother winter do the job. All your troops have to do is pick off stragglers. It's a good tactic, and works well in an area that's large and cold. It wont work however, in large land masses that aren't that cold, there you actually have to meet army to army. Russia's track record in that area are suspect at best, Peter the Great being one of the few Russia generals to actually defeat a major power OUTSIDE Russia. Another point to how capable the US was. A German Uboat captain was ordered to shell New York harbor, he actually made it to said destination, surfaced and watched as the New York nightlife took full effect. At wich point he sank bank into the waters and quitely made his way out, never fireing a shot. His conclusions written in his log at the time were simple. How can you fight a power, who's own people don't even realize a World War is going on? If a nation fights you as strongly as it does and it's civilans still live as if nothing is going on, what would they do if you actually harmed thier civilans? He didn't even want to think of the carnage that could be unleashed if such a nation truely became angery.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
