Russian army as good as the US army?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dyna mo
    just a fucking jerk
    • Dec 2008
    • 68184

    #196
    Originally posted by CyberSEO
    I can second it. Our army is not as good as the US one. Yours at least much bigger than ours. On the other hand, in case of war, the strength will not mean anything because of nukes. It's like a slim guy against a huge bodybuilder on steroids when both have guns
    i was just fucking with my buddy, cdsmith, richard style, i figured he'd appreciate that.



    nevertheless, i'm not so sure. ultimately it depends where and why. you guys invade us and y'all will have some probs, we invade y'all, we'll have issues. this happens in some shithole somewhere, it will be a who can't shoot who the most.

    it's also hard to gauge how russia would do since the union broke-up. not much experience to draw on.

    also, i am not so sure we all settled things at the end of the cold war and our governments are now buddy buddy.

    just like when we were all buddy buddy with apollo-soyuz yet spying like crazy on each other and who knows what else.

    Comment

    • helterskelter808
      So Fucking Banned
      • Sep 2010
      • 3405

      #197
      Operation Drumbeat was a prime example of us knowing better than countries with experience, when we refused to black out coastal areas, allowing U-Boats free reign to attack whatever they liked. Seems absolutely staggering and ubelievable, but this was the decision of Admiral Ernest King, perhaps motivated by an intense hatred of Britain.

      The British warned us about Operation Drumbeat (after cracking Enigma, something Hollyweird thinks we did before we were even in the war), but were ignored. End result:

      A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942. There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean. A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

      Explosions could be heard and burning wrecks could be seen from the shoreline at night. Dead bodies, debris and oil washed ashore on east coast beaches. Despite all of this, blackouts were never implemented as they were along the coasts of England and Germany.

      This gave the German submarine crews a tremendous advantage in being able to spot cargo ships running along the coast at night with their lights extinguished. A "dim-out" was eventually mandated, but even with the lights dimmed out, patrol boats were able see the glow of New York from a distance of 25 miles off shore.
      Not sure where that text is originally from, but it's not Wikipedia. Wikipedia though says the Brits eventually had to build ships and supply them to us because we wouldn't just turn out the lights; as it describes, a kind of "reverse Lend Lease".

      Speaking of which, since people have been talking about Lend Lease, you can read about "reverse Lend Lease" here:

      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16340

      Under reverse lend-lease, the British have provided our bomber and fighter commands with many necessary items.

      Specially heated winter flying clothing to protect bomber crews from the intense cold suffered at high altitudes was supplied by the British to our Air Forces.

      When certain United States fighter gun sights proved less effective than the sights employed by British fighters, the Royal Air Force provided a substantial number of British-type sights for immediate installation.

      American bombers have been equipped by the British with photographic equipment effective in obtaining photographs of the target during the bomb run.

      The British have also provided facilities for the development and production of a new type of protective body armor designed by our medical authorities.

      A variety of other aid has also been provided for our Air Forces by the United Kingdom.

      Mobile repair shops located throughout the United Kingdom recondition American bombers forced to make crash landings.

      A one-man dinghy, developed by the British for parachute landings at sea, provides pilots of American planes with a one-man floating raft.

      Specialized British radio equipment has been installed in American planes which has given greater safety to our bomber crews, and has improved the effectiveness of our bombing missions.

      For purposes of recognition training, the Royal Air Force has delivered to the United States Air Forces more than 60,000 items of aircraft, warship, and armed vehicle recognition devices.

      These are but a few instances of the aid which has been provided to our Air Forces under reverse lend-lease and without payment by us.

      Although Great Britain depends upon imports for a large portion of her curtailed food supply, she is providing American forces with substantial amounts of foodstuffs as reverse lend-lease aid. These range from fresh vegetables, flour, and potatoes to corn-on-the-cob and soft drinks.

      Australia, New Zealand, and India have also provided United States forces in those areas with substantial reverse lend-lease aid, including most of their food.

      [...]

      Recreational needs of American soldiers have been met by an Australian program which calls for every type of game and accessory from boxing gloves to medicine balls- in all, more than 420,000 items of such equipment.

      Numerous hospitals, including the newest and most modern in the country, have been made available to the United States Army for its exclusive use.

      Official air, rail, and water passenger costs and freight, and cable and telegraph expenses of our troops are paid by the Commonwealth Government as reverse lend-lease aid.

      A large number of small ships of various types has been turned over to American authorities, and Australian shipyards are now turning out landing barges and small vessels for the combat use of our forces.

      On September 29, 1943, the Australian Minister of Finance introduced the Commonwealth Budget for the current fiscal year in the Australian Parliament. He estimated that Australia will spend approximately $323,000,000 for reverse lend-lease during the year July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1944.

      New Zealand, no less than Australia and the United Kingdom, has supplied its share of reverse lend-lease aid. For the period ending June 30, 1943, the New Zealand Government has officially reported having expended $51,000,000 for reverse lend-lease aid to the United States

      [...]

      American requirements under reverse lend-lease have also occasioned shortages in many other phases of New Zealand's civilian life. Nevertheless, the Dominion continues greatly to expand the scope and volume of her reverse lend-lease to the United States

      [...]

      While no official report has yet been received from the Government of India, our Army reports total expenditures by India for reverse lend-lease aid of approximately $56,900,000

      Canada has received no lend-lease aid from the United States. She has paid cash for the supplies obtained in this country. It may be noted, however, that Canada has already made a billion dollars' worth of aid available without payment to the United Kingdom and is now engaged in making available another billion dollars' worth of aid to the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and the other United Nations on a mutual-aid program similar to our lend-lease program.

      This statement of the expenditures made by the British Commonwealth of Nations for reverse lend-lease aid furnished to the United States, and of the expansion of this program so as to include exports of materials and foodstuffs for the account of United States agencies from the United Kingdom and the British colonies, emphasizes the contribution which the British Commonwealth has made "to the defense of the United States" while taking its place on the battle fronts.

      Comment

      • just a punk
        So fuckin' bored
        • Jun 2003
        • 32393

        #198
        Originally posted by Rochard
        Nukes don't come into play in such discussions. Once one side uses them, the other side would too. This is why we've been fighting proxy wars for the past fifty years.
        Nukes will be used in case of any direct (non-proxy) Russia-vs-USA conflict. We just have no other weapon against your aircraft carriers. I.e. one US aircraft carrier == one Russian tactical nuke missile. I mean that non-nuclear war is just impossible. At least, according to our military doctrine. Telling you that as the Russian officer in reserve.
        Last edited by just a punk; 05-17-2013, 01:19 PM.
        Obey the Cowgod

        Comment

        • dyna mo
          just a fucking jerk
          • Dec 2008
          • 68184

          #199
          Originally posted by CyberSEO
          Nukes will be used in case of any direct (non-proxy) Russia-vs-USA conflict. We just have no other weapon against your aircraft carriers. I.e. one US aircraft carriers == one Russian tactical nuke missile. I mean that non-nuclear was is just impossible. At least, according to our military doctrine. Telling you that as the Russian officer in reserve.
          i'd bet the u.s. won't be the next entity firing off a nuke. that's some pretty bad publicity to deal with.

          Comment

          • _Richard_
            Too lazy to set a custom title
            • Oct 2006
            • 30991

            #200
            Originally posted by helterskelter808
            Operation Drumbeat was a prime example of us knowing better than countries with experience, when we refused to black out coastal areas, allowing U-Boats free reign to attack whatever they liked. Seems absolutely staggering and ubelievable, but this was the decision of Admiral Ernest King, perhaps motivated by an intense hatred of Britain.

            The British warned us about Operation Drumbeat (after cracking Enigma, something Hollyweird thinks we did before we were even in the war), but were ignored. End result:



            Not sure where that text is originally from, but it's not Wikipedia. Wikipedia though says the Brits eventually had to build ships and supply them to us because we wouldn't just turn out the lights; as it describes, a kind of "reverse Lend Lease".

            Speaking of which, since people have been talking about Lend Lease, you can read about "reverse Lend Lease" here:

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16340
            find the 'iceships' yet?

            that was the plan for the uboats. build 'icebergs' as ships.

            no joke.

            Comment

            • rogueteens
              So fucking bland
              • Jul 2006
              • 8005

              #201
              Originally posted by Rochard
              Churchill saw the wisdom in standing his ground. Hilter was a one trick pony - he would promise he wouldn't attack, would stage "incidents" and then claim he was protecting "Germans and German interests" and then would attack.

              Sure, Churchill could have signed a peace treaty... And then watched as Germany build up in invasion force in France while Hilter start complaining loudly about how "Germans were being treated" in the UK.

              He did the right thing.
              .
              Of cause, history shows that but at the time, Britain was alone and had it's back against the wall and invasion was a real threat.

              Originally posted by Rochard
              Not at all. Americans believed in brute force, not hiding in the darkness of night and maybe hitting the target. They wanted to destroy their targets, not play guessing games.
              Really? At the cost of their own pilots and proving pretty damn ineffective at hitting targets?
              BTW, I spoke to an old WW2 soldier once after some British troops were killed in Iraq by American planes. He told me that even in WW2 "You always wanted to know which way the yanks were pointing their guns".

              http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19629449&postcount=197
              Free traffic and backlinks from one of the fastest growing adult pinsites on the net - SAUCY PICTURES!
              Easily my best performing webcam sponsor - CLICK HERE!!

              Comment

              • helterskelter808
                So Fucking Banned
                • Sep 2010
                • 3405

                #202
                Originally posted by Rochard
                Churchill saw the wisdom in standing his ground. Hilter was a one trick pony - he would promise he wouldn't attack, would stage "incidents" and then claim he was protecting "Germans and German interests" and then would attack.

                Sure, Churchill could have signed a peace treaty... And then watched as Germany build up in invasion force in France while Hilter start complaining loudly about how "Germans were being treated" in the UK.
                Hitler didn't even occupy the whole of France, a country which had surrendered, and he would have been trapped in a quagmire, literally, in Russia for a decade while having to maintain control of the rest of Europe he'd occupied.

                It's a matter of historical fact how much he admired the British Empire almost as much as he loathed the Russians. By the time he'd suppressed/liquidated them, if ever, Britain may have already developed its atom bomb, whereupon we'd have a situation with dictatorship across Europe, with a few free countries, one of which was nuclear armed.

                Pretty much how things turned out anyway, just with different actors.

                Comment

                • RKLover
                  A B User
                  • Dec 2007
                  • 256

                  #203
                  Originally posted by CyberSEO
                  Yep, but not for free. It was done in exchange of gold. That's just a business
                  The Gold was promised. It was never delivered. However, the Tanks and airplanes were delivered.
                  There is no excuse for ignorance, yet it still remains a powerful force.

                  Comment

                  • helterskelter808
                    So Fucking Banned
                    • Sep 2010
                    • 3405

                    #204
                    Originally posted by RKLover
                    Still, there is no doubt in my mind that Russia suffered more horribly than any other nation during the course of WWII.
                    Poland might have something to say about that.

                    Comment

                    • RKLover
                      A B User
                      • Dec 2007
                      • 256

                      #205
                      Originally posted by rogueteens
                      A couple of minor points, Churchill had plenty of chances to negotiate a truce and even during "The Darkest Hour" refused.

                      Yes America did provide (sell) loads of hardware but their troops were badly trained and their leaders refused point blank to learn the lessons learnt the hard way by the British in the war with Germany. an example being that the USAF insisted on restarting day raids, ignoring the RAF advice to fly by night resulting in huge losses.
                      Not entirely accurate. The American leadership refused to blindly bomb civilians in the middle of the night. Maybe they would have felt differently had the endured the nightly German bombings of London.

                      As for badly trained? Simply put. Screw you. And your Dog. My Dad flew 34 missions, my best friends Dad is an ace. Stick that back up your ass where it belongs.
                      There is no excuse for ignorance, yet it still remains a powerful force.

                      Comment

                      • Rochard
                        Jägermeister Test Pilot
                        • Dec 2001
                        • 75733

                        #206
                        Originally posted by rogueteens
                        Of cause, history shows that but at the time, Britain was alone and had it's back against the wall and invasion was a real threat.
                        Yeah... He liked them all right up until he stabbed them in the back and invaded them.

                        Originally posted by rogueteens
                        Really? At the cost of their own pilots and proving pretty damn ineffective at hitting targets?
                        BTW, I spoke to an old WW2 soldier once after some British troops were killed in Iraq by American planes. He told me that even in WW2 "You always wanted to know which way the yanks were pointing their guns".
                        LOL. So we gave weapons to a former British colony.... Shame on us.
                        Herschel Savage
                        Brooklyn, NY

                        Comment

                        • EddyTheDog
                          Just Doing My Own Thing
                          • Jan 2011
                          • 25433

                          #207
                          Has anyone posted this yet - I am not going through the whole thread....

                          Comment

                          • Rochard
                            Jägermeister Test Pilot
                            • Dec 2001
                            • 75733

                            #208
                            Originally posted by helterskelter808
                            Hitler didn't even occupy the whole of France, a country which had surrendered, and he would have been trapped in a quagmire, literally, in Russia for a decade while having to maintain control of the rest of Europe he'd occupied.
                            Yeah, Hilter set up a rump state - Vichy France. But even Vichy France was divided into half, half of which was directly controlled by the Nazis and the other half had a French government that was nothing more than puppets.


                            Originally posted by helterskelter808
                            H
                            It's a matter of historical fact how much he admired the British Empire almost as much as he loathed the Russians. By the time he'd suppressed/liquidated them, if ever, Britain may have already developed its atom bomb, whereupon we'd have a situation with dictatorship across Europe, with a few free countries, one of which was nuclear armed.
                            He claims he admired the British, but he desperately wanted to bring them to heel. He just physically couldn't. The British controlled the channel and the skies; Germany tried to build an invasion fleet by the Brits just attacked them from the air and destroyed them before the Germans could get enough boats ready for Sea Lion.
                            Herschel Savage
                            Brooklyn, NY

                            Comment

                            • Rochard
                              Jägermeister Test Pilot
                              • Dec 2001
                              • 75733

                              #209
                              Originally posted by helterskelter808
                              Poland might have something to say about that.
                              Russia lost four to five times more than Russia did. No one had more killed or wounded than Russia did.
                              Herschel Savage
                              Brooklyn, NY

                              Comment

                              • _Richard_
                                Too lazy to set a custom title
                                • Oct 2006
                                • 30991

                                #210
                                Originally posted by Rochard
                                Russia lost four to five times more than Russia did. No one had more killed or wounded than Russia did.
                                no one killed or wounded more russians than the russians did either

                                what of it

                                Comment

                                Working...