What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Russia preparing for ‘Big, Colossal War’ with NATO, says Major General

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
The Bear Goes Over the Mountain and Scorches the Other Side

Tell it to the ghosts of the Nazis slaughtered effectively and mercilessly by these same never-quit Russian conscripts.
Mercilessly I’ll give you, but not effectively. The Red Army always took far higher losses than the Germans. That was true even when fighting on the defensive which gives the defender a huge advantage. The Russian conscripts won because they feared Stalin and his NKVD goons more than the Germans.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Mercilessly I’ll give you, but not effectively. The Red Army always took far higher losses than the Germans. That was true even when fighting on the defensive which gives the defender a huge advantage. The Russian conscripts won because they feared Stalin and his NKVD goons more than the Germans.
The Germans were consistently successful against the Russians until the US bombed out Germany's military factories so that Germany could no longer replace the weapons it lost on the battlefield. In the battle of Kursk, July 5, 1943, often considered the turning point in the war, an enormous Russian army suffered catastrophic losses against a much smaller German army but the Germans had to retreated because the US had destroyed Germany's military factories and the Germans couldn't replace the tanks they had lost. When Russia holds its victory day parade, it should feature thousands of American flags because without the US the Red Army would have been driven into the Pacific.
 

HenryBHough

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
33,285
Reaction score
8,792
Points
1,340
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Xiden will do his all to encourage Russia to attack America.

Then he can run again as an "invincible wartime president". Look for his puppet masters to try to suspend all elections because of the perils of the war.

If you don't think that can happen it simply means you were never allowed to learn about Rooseveldt.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,367
Reaction score
1,530
Points
208
Location
Over there
The Germans were consistently successful against the Russians until the US bombed out Germany's military factories so that Germany could no longer replace the weapons it lost on the battlefield.
Are you illiterate or just an idiot? Germany, despite the bombing of the Allies, increased the production of weapons until 1945. Do you know what is the best remedy against airplanes? Enemy tanks at airfields.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Are you illiterate or just an idiot? Germany, despite the bombing of the Allies, increased the production of weapons until 1945. Do you know what is the best remedy against airplanes? Enemy tanks at airfields.

Obviously not true. Germany decisively defeated the Red Army at the battle of Kursh, the greatest tank battle in history, but was forced to retreat because it could not replace its losses on the battlefield because of day and night bombing attacks on Germay's military factories every day for seven months by the US.

Battle of Kursk:[f]

German losses
    • 165,314 men (54,182 men during Operation Citadel and 111,132 men during the Soviet counter-offensives) [17][g] – 203,000[18]
    • Estimate 760[19]-1,200[20] tanks and assault guns destroyed
    • 681 aircraft (for 5–31 July)[21][h]
Russian losses



Although the Germans crushed the Red Army at Kursk, this battle marked the beginning of the German retreat from Russa, not because of Russian military prowess, but because of seven months of day and night bombing of Germany's military factories by the US. This is why Russians should be waving thousands of US flags each year at their Victory Day parades. Russia had never won a battle against Germany until the US destroyed Germany's military factories.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,367
Reaction score
1,530
Points
208
Location
Over there

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Obviously not true. Germany decisively defeated the Red Army at the battle of Kursh, the greatest tank battle in history, but was forced to retreat because it could not replace its losses on the battlefield because of day and night bombing attacks on Germay's military factories every day for seven months by the US.

Battle of Kursk:[f]

German losses
    • 165,314 men (54,182 men during Operation Citadel and 111,132 men during the Soviet counter-offensives) [17][g] – 203,000[18]
    • Estimate 760[19]-1,200[20] tanks and assault guns destroyed
    • 681 aircraft (for 5–31 July)[21][h]
Russian losses

  • 254,470 killed, missing or captured
    608,833 wounded or sick[27]Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia (74% wounded and 26% sick[28])
    [*]Total 863,303[29] (~710,000 casualties in combat)
    [*]6,064 tanks and assault guns destroyed or heavily damaged[30][j][12][31] (of which, 60–65% were completely destroyed[32])
    [*]~2,220 aircraft (including long-range aviation)[29]
    [*]5,244 guns[25]


Although the Germans crushed the Red Army at Kursk, this battle marked the beginning of the German retreat from Russa, not because of Russian military prowess, but because of seven months of day and night bombing of Germany's military factories by the US. This is why Russians should be waving thousands of US flags each year at their Victory Day parades. Russia had never won a battle against Germany until the US destroyed Germany's military factories.
German war production didn't really increase until late 1943 and peaked in 1944 falling off again in 1945. It was the result of Albert Speer rationalizing production and finally putting Germany on a war production footing. Allied bombing DID gut German war production, the weapons and vehicles built during 1944 were simplified models to increase production at the cost of fighting ability. The bombing offensive also destroyed Germany's ability to move war equipment to the battlefield and destroyed Germany's oil production resulting in scarcity of fuel, ammo and replacement weapons. The slave labor used to replace civilians killed by the bombing raids actively sabotaged the equipment they were building.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
The Germans were consistently successful against the Russians until the US bombed out Germany's military factories so that Germany could no longer replace the weapons it lost on the battlefield. In the battle of Kursk, July 5, 1943, often considered the turning point in the war, an enormous Russian army suffered catastrophic losses against a much smaller German army but the Germans had to retreated because the US had destroyed Germany's military factories and the Germans couldn't replace the tanks they had lost. When Russia holds its victory day parade, it should feature thousands of American flags because without the US the Red Army would have been driven into the Pacific.
The Germans lost at Kursk. They didn't achieve any of their operational objectives and couldn't win a battle of attrition against the soviets who had a much deeper pool of manpower to draw upon and were supported by supplies from a source the Germans couldn't access to destroy.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
The Germans lost at Kursk. They didn't achieve any of their operational objectives and couldn't win a battle of attrition against the soviets who had a much deeper pool of manpower to draw upon and were supported by supplies from a source the Germans couldn't access to destroy.
By no rational measure can you say the Germans lost at Kursk. Russian losses at Kursk were several times greater than German losses, but at the end of the battle, Germany had to withdraw because it couldn't resupply its forces with new tanks and planes because of US bombing attacks on Germany. The Germans lost 203,000 soldiers, but the Russians lost 710,000 casualties in battle; Germany lost 760 - 1200 tanks and heavy assault guns but Russia lost Russia lost 6,064 tanks and assault guns; Germany lost 681 aircraft but Russia lost 2,220 aircraft. Had Germany been able to resupply its forces in Russia, the Germans would have continued to push the Red Army toward the Pacific, but Germany could not resupply its forces in Russia because of the massive allied bombing of its industrial base and also because German forces had to be diverted to counter the allied landing in Sicily, which began during the Battle of Kursk. Kursk was an allied victory, but a Russian defeat.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
By no rational measure can you say the Germans lost at Kursk. Russian losses at Kursk were several times greater than German losses, but at the end of the battle, Germany had to withdraw because it couldn't resupply its forces with new tanks and planes because of US bombing attacks on Germany. The Germans lost 203,000 soldiers, but the Russians lost 710,000 casualties in battle; Germany lost 760 - 1200 tanks and heavy assault guns but Russia lost Russia lost 6,064 tanks and assault guns; Germany lost 681 aircraft but Russia lost 2,220 aircraft. Had Germany been able to resupply its forces in Russia, the Germans would have continued to push the Red Army toward the Pacific, but Germany could not resupply its forces in Russia because of the massive allied bombing of its industrial base and also because German forces had to be diverted to counter the allied landing in Sicily, which began during the Battle of Kursk. Kursk was an allied victory, but a Russian defeat.
It’s simple to prove the Germans lost. They didn’t achieve a single one of their objectives and had to retreat in disorder leaving their damaged and destroyed equipment behind. In August 1943 the American bombing offensive still hadn’t hit its strides taking heavy losses from the Luftwaffe for little gain. And the RAF was concentrating on“dehousing” German civilians, not trying to attack factories. German industry was largely intact at that point.
Germany couldn’t resupply its forces because it was fighting three enemies that each had larger manpower and industrial resources than Germany did. Germany could have beaten either the USSR or the U.K., but not both, let alone the American industrial colossus.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
It’s simple to prove the Germans lost. They didn’t achieve a single one of their objectives and had to retreat in disorder leaving their damaged and destroyed equipment behind. In August 1943 the American bombing offensive still hadn’t hit its strides taking heavy losses from the Luftwaffe for little gain. And the RAF was concentrating on“dehousing” German civilians, not trying to attack factories. German industry was largely intact at that point.
Germany couldn’t resupply its forces because it was fighting three enemies that each had larger manpower and industrial resources than Germany did. Germany could have beaten either the USSR or the U.K., but not both, let alone the American industrial colossus.
The battle of Kursk could be called an allied victory but the staggering Russian losses make it clear that the Red Army was soundly defeated in this battle.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,717
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
The battle of Kursk could be called an allied victory but the staggering Russian losses make it clear that the Red Army was soundly defeated in this battle.
Losses don’t determine who won or lost a battle. What determines who won a battle is who accomplished their objectives. At Kursk, the Russians turned back the German offensive, so they won. Like at Coral Sea, the USN lost more ships, but turned back the Japanese invasion of Port Moresby. The Japanese failed to meet their objective while the US achieved theirs. The US won the battle. In WWII the Russians always took staggering losses, that was the way the Red Army fought.
 

Ringo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
4,367
Reaction score
1,530
Points
208
Location
Over there
It’s simple to prove the Germans lost. They didn’t achieve a single one of their objectives and had to retreat in disorder leaving their damaged and destroyed equipment behind.
It's interesting to read how this idiot will describe the nazi victory in Stalingrad. And it's also interesting to know about Berlin. How unconditional surrender showed the superiority of the aryan spirit over the untermensch...
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Losses don’t determine who won or lost a battle. What determines who won a battle is who accomplished their objectives. At Kursk, the Russians turned back the German offensive, so they won. Like at Coral Sea, the USN lost more ships, but turned back the Japanese invasion of Port Moresby. The Japanese failed to meet their objective while the US achieved theirs. The US won the battle. In WWII the Russians always took staggering losses, that was the way the Red Army fought.
But the Russians didn't turn the Germans back. Hitler ordered the German army to retreat because the allies had landed in Sicily during the battle and Germany was unable to supply both the German armies in Russia and the German armies in Italy. It was the US bombing of Germany's industrial base and the allied landing in Sicily during the battle that forced the German army to retreat to protect its interests in Europe, not the Red Army. I was not the Red Army that turned the Germans back; it was the allies that saved the Red Army from utter destruction.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,744
Reaction score
49,465
Points
2,290
As for now, the West's strategy is to confront Russia without provoking more decisive steps from it. How this strategy will play out we will see after some time.

As for Ukraine, it will mean losing some territories in the near future and maybe regaining other ones. And ending this conflict with stalemate.

Cutting off Kaliningrad, supposedly "readying" 300,000 troops and adding Finland and Sweden to NATO is not trying to provoke....sure
 
Last edited:

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,307
Reaction score
1,059
Points
140
Cutting off Kaliningrad, supposedly "readying" 300,000 troops and adding Finland and Sweden to NATO is not trying to provoke....sure
I was talking about delivering of certain weapons to Ukraine.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Cutting off Kaliningrad, supposedly "readying" 300,000 troops and adding Finland and Sweden to NATO is not trying to provoke....sure
What the hell does that even mean, to provoke? Do you mean to make Putin angry? Are you saying Sweden and Finland should make their decisions to suit Putin's moods? Russia has no legal right to send its goods across the sovereign state of Lithuania. Is Lithuania supposed to make its decisions to suit Putin's moods? Fuck Putin. That creepy little sociopath will just have to suck it up, maybe take a pill to help him calm down.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
What a nonsense. It is clear now that Russia can't win any conventional war with NATO. If NATO wasn't so afraid of Russia's nuclear response, this time would be perfect to resolve Transnistria and Belarus issues.
Who said about conventional war? According their doctrine even a regional war is a nuclear one.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,892
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Who said about conventional war? According their doctrine even a regional war is a nuclear one.
More bullshit.

'According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia "in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened"'

 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
What the hell does that even mean, to provoke? Do you mean to make Putin angry? Are you saying Sweden and Finland should make their decisions to suit Putin's moods? Russia has no legal right to send its goods across the sovereign state of Lithuania. Is Lithuania supposed to make its decisions to suit Putin's moods? Fuck Putin. That creepy little sociopath will just have to suck it up, maybe take a pill to help him calm down.
Do you really think, that Castro didn't have a right to join the communistic alliance and deploy Soviet nuclear missiles? Do you think, that Soviet Union and Cuba should have make their decisions to suit Kennedy's moods back in 1962? If you want to survive - you must at least understand other people and make conversations with them.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$253.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top