Honoring The Sacrifices Of The Soviet Union in WWII….Really?

[AZrailwhale]

the US was not going to beat the Russian army
remember, the US had FULL air and naval supremacy in Vietnam, but still did npt win

The US never applied it’s superiority in Vietnam. When Nixon finally applied some of it in the Linebacker bombing campaigns and cut the road and rail links to China and closed Haiphong Harbor to Soviet ships with mines, the PRVN couldn’t sign a peace treaty fast enough. We won that war. The fact that the PRVN started a new war after being resupplied and retrained but the Soviets has no bearing. If the democrats had lived up to the promises made to the RVN in the peace treaty, the PRVN would have lost AGAIN. But they cowardly reneged on our guarantees of supplies and aerial support.

 

[harmonica]

No they didn’t. The only thing about the T-34 that was superior to the Sherman was that it had lower ground pressure until the HVSS suspension was added to the Sherman. The Sherman’s 75mm gun had almost identical performance to the T-34s 76mm gun and the Sherman’s 76mm gun was as good as the T-34’s 85mm gun with regular ammo and superior to it with the late war HVAP ammo. The various KV and JS heavies were slow, unreliable and maintenance hogs useful only for frontal assaults on fortified positions or last ditch stands. The Soviets were never skilled at armored warfare, they were skilled at using a their armor as a expendable club to overwhelm their opponents,

...but the Russians had a lot more tanks ....you say the Russian tanks were ''unreliable'' etc--but they beat the Germans

 

[AZrailwhale]

JESUS CHRIST--again, these people think it's a board game where you move pieces on a game board !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! typical
.....again--the HUGE issue is logistics and distances to travel!!!!!! = almost impossible
and, for AZ --remember = the longer your distance travel/''conquered'':
needs MORE logistics EXPONENTIALLY
AND makes you WEAKER....
= the longer your supply lines are and the more territory you ''conquer'' the more weaker
AND the more transportation/etc needed
etc

But the US had the logistical ability to do and the Germans and Soviets didn’t.

 

[harmonica]

The US never applied it’s superiority in Vietnam. When Nixon finally applied some of it in the Linebacker bombing campaigns and cut the road and rail links to China and closed Haiphong Harbor to Soviet ships with mines, the PRVN couldn’t sign a peace treaty fast enough. We won that war. The fact that the PRVN started a new war after being resupplied and retrained but the Soviets has no bearing. If the democrats had lived up to the promises made to the RVN in the peace treaty, the PRVN would have lost AGAIN. But they cowardly reneged on our guarantees of supplies and aerial support.

what??? we had TACTICAL air supremacy .....Vietnam was unwinnable no matter what the US did
..the US dropped more tonnage in Nam than in WW2 !!!!!!
we won Vietnam ????!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

...but the Russians had a lot more tanks ....you say the Russian tanks were ''unreliable'' etc--but they beat the Germans

They beat the Germans by drowning them in the blood of murdered Red Army troops and destroyed tanks. That’s why they lost over twenty million people in the war. That approach doesn’t work against American troops, we worship firepower and never send a man when a bullet or artillery shell will do the job.

 

[AZrailwhale]

what??? we had TACTICAL air supremacy .....Vietnam was unwinnable no matter what the US did
..the US dropped more tonnage in Nam than in WW2 !!!!!!
we won Vietnam ????!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

We had ROEs that prevented us from effectively using our air supremacy. If we had been operating under WWII ROEs that didn’t worry about collateral damage, the war would have been over in months because we would have simply invaded and conquered North Vietnam instead of fighting an insurgency, that I’ll agree was doomed to failure. We forced the PRVN to surrender by fighting a conventional bombing campaign, cutting it off from supplies and making the government and people face starvation. North Vietnam wasn’t able to feed itself, and didn’t build a single rifle or make a single round of ammunition, most of its food and all of its war making supplies came from either China or the USSR. Read the Paris Peace Accords some time. The PRVN surrendered and agreed to cease hostilities just like Germany did at Versailles after WWI, and France did after the fall of Napolean. The only difference is that we didn't demand reparations.

 

[harmonica]

But the US had the logistical ability to do and the Germans and Soviets didn’t.

no--the US did not have the logistics to go past Germany and still be as strong.....read again--Patton had to stop because of lack of logistics
..again--the longer you go and the more territory you conquer, the more logistics are needed EXPONENTIALLY
...the Russians had the manpower and tanks to cover/defend MORE territory than was needed for a front against the Allies
...the Russians had MCUH more manpower/tanks/etc

 

[harmonica]

They beat the Germans by drowning them in the blood of murdered Red Army troops and destroyed tanks. That’s why they lost over twenty million people in the war. That approach doesn’t work against American troops, we worship firepower and never send a man when a bullet or artillery shell will do the job.

you contradicted yourself

 

[harmonica]

We had ROEs that prevented us from effectively using our air supremacy. If we had been operating under WWII ROEs that didn’t worry about collateral damage, the war would have been over in months because we would have simply invaded and conquered North Vietnam instead of fighting an insurgency, that I’ll agree was doomed to failure. We forced the PRVN to surrender by fighting a conventional bombing campaign, cutting it off from supplies and making the government and people face starvation. North Vietnam wasn’t able to feed itself, and didn’t build a single rifle or make a single round of ammunition, most of its food and all of its war making supplies came from either China or the USSR. Read the Paris Peace Accords some time. The PRVN surrendered and agreed to cease hostilities just like Germany did at Versailles after WWI, and France did after the fall of Napolean. The only difference is that we didn't demand reparations.

we didn't have ROEs in Korea and China whooped our asses

 

[harmonica]

We had ROEs that prevented us from effectively using our air supremacy. If we had been operating under WWII ROEs that didn’t worry about collateral damage, the war would have been over in months because we would have simply invaded and conquered North Vietnam instead of fighting an insurgency, that I’ll agree was doomed to failure. We forced the PRVN to surrender by fighting a conventional bombing campaign, cutting it off from supplies and making the government and people face starvation. North Vietnam wasn’t able to feed itself, and didn’t build a single rifle or make a single round of ammunition, most of its food and all of its war making supplies came from either China or the USSR. Read the Paris Peace Accords some time. The PRVN surrendered and agreed to cease hostilities just like Germany did at Versailles after WWI, and France did after the fall of Napolean. The only difference is that we didn't demand reparations.

..I've been over this many times----Vietnam was not an industrious country---you could bomb the shit out of them with NO ROEs and still no win

 

[harmonica]

We had ROEs that prevented us from effectively using our air supremacy. If we had been operating under WWII ROEs that didn’t worry about collateral damage, the war would have been over in months because we would have simply invaded and conquered North Vietnam instead of fighting an insurgency, that I’ll agree was doomed to failure. We forced the PRVN to surrender by fighting a conventional bombing campaign, cutting it off from supplies and making the government and people face starvation. North Vietnam wasn’t able to feed itself, and didn’t build a single rifle or make a single round of ammunition, most of its food and all of its war making supplies came from either China or the USSR. Read the Paris Peace Accords some time. The PRVN surrendered and agreed to cease hostilities just like Germany did at Versailles after WWI, and France did after the fall of Napolean. The only difference is that we didn't demand reparations.

conventional bombing does not win wars--I've been over this before in my thread that I linked....no ROEs in WW2...Germany was an industrious country ...we bombed the shit out of them--no win until the Russians went in on the GROUND into the Reichstag

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AZrailwhale
both sides made bad decisions/etc.....war is not like making a sandwich...there is much to it......a LOT of it [ war/battles ] has to do with LOGISTICS
......Rapido is a perfect example of an idiot American general forcing troops into a kill zone .....
......plain and simple, the Allied leaders were not GODs who were PERFECT

Patton was revolted that we allowed "great Esstern European capitals" to be handed to Uncle Joe and the Communists

 

[AZrailwhale]

no--the US did not have the logistics to go past Germany and still be as strong.....read again--Patton had to stop because of lack of logistics
..again--the longer you go and the more territory you conquer, the more logistics are needed EXPONENTIALLY
...the Russians had the manpower and tanks to cover/defend MORE territory than was needed for a front against the Allies
...the Russians had MCUH more manpower/tanks/etc
View attachment 552643

The Allies temporarily stopped until the engineers could bring up the pipelines and rail lines to supply the armies. Then we were good for another five hundred or so miles before another logistics halt would be needed. The Soviets lacked the ability to rapidly lay rails and pipelines so they were dependent on lend lease trucks from their rail heads to the front line and even then never came up with anything like the Red Ball Express to move vast quantities of supplies quickly by truck.

 

[AZrailwhale]

we didn't have ROEs in Korea and China whooped our asses

No the Chinese didn’t. They launched a surprise attack, catching MacAurther off guard and pushed the UN forces back. The UN forces regrouped, and pushed the Chinese back to the 38th parrellel where they chose to stop. In the process, the UN forces killed somewhere between 180,000 and 460,000 Chinese troops in the process. That’s a major defeat of the Chinese by the UN forces. If anybody got their asses whooped it was the Chinese “volunteers” and the North Koreans.

 

[AZrailwhale]

..I've been over this many times----Vietnam was not an industrious country---you could bomb the shit out of them with NO ROEs and still no win

We won by blocking all the imported food and war supplies fed from China via the road and rail links and from the USSR via Haiphong Harbor. Without those supplies the North Vietnamese couldn’t prosecute the war. The PRVN immediately signed the Paris Peace Accords after delaying them for over a year when it looked like they were winning.

 

[AZrailwhale]

conventional bombing does not win wars--I've been over this before in my thread that I linked....no ROEs in WW2...Germany was an industrious country ...we bombed the shit out of them--no win until the Russians went in on the GROUND into the Reichstag

The Soviets were only able to advance because allied bombing had destroyed the German economy. There was no coal to heat the factories or remaining homes, no oil, not even ersatz oil to fuel the tanks and aircraft the slave labor factories were producing, the railroads and bridges were destroyed by allied air power. The “divisions” the Red Army was facing had fewer than a hundred “tanks” most of which were actually Hetzer tank destroyers, improvised antitank armored cars, backed up by a few assault guns and actual tanks and no food for troops or civilians.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Soviets were only able to advance because allied bombing had destroyed the German economy. There was no coal to heat the factories or remaining homes, no oil, not even ersatz oil to fuel the tanks and aircraft the slave labor factories were producing, the railroads and bridges were destroyed by allied air power. The “divisions” the Red Army was facing had fewer than a hundred “tanks” most of which were actually Hetzer tank destroyers, improvised antitank armored cars, backed up by a few assault guns and actual tanks and no food for troops or civilians.

you contradicted yourself

No I didn’t, the Soviets were wasteful of men and tanks.

 

[harmonica]

No I didn’t, the Soviets were wasteful of men and tanks.

..the Germans INCREASED their production even after the big bombing raids ..it wasn't until we got the P51 enmasse, that we really started to get air supremacy/etc ....

Allied bombing of Germany during the second world war

Kurt Vonnegut and John Kenneth Galbraith remember the Allied attacks on German cities

www.theguardian.com

 

[harmonica]

We won by blocking all the imported food and war supplies fed from China via the road and rail links and from the USSR via Haiphong Harbor. Without those supplies the North Vietnamese couldn’t prosecute the war. The PRVN immediately signed the Paris Peace Accords after delaying them for over a year when it looked like they were winning.

that's funny--I thought there is no South Vietnam today ......????!!!
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Correll]

Why would the Nazis surrender when their entire Army is still active on the Eastern Front?

Because they are losing badly, and it is better to surrender earlier than later when even more of your people have died and your country is reduced to rubble.