bintananth
behind a desk
I don't agree with that assesment.
Germany was still capable of fighting the Allies on even terms. Japan was not.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
Germany was still capable of fighting the Allies on even terms. Japan was not.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Germany was finished at the time of its surrender, It had lost massive amounts of manpower and its economy was rubble.
bintananth
behind a desk
Yes, they were finished. They were also not completely and unequivocally defeated in the way the Japanese were.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I mean their capital was captured and their leader an hero'd, They were using children and old men for soldiers. I'd say that is unequivocally defeated.
Megadeath
Well-known member
There was in fact some resistance, though it was limited and ineffective. Because that was, again, literally the most destructive and murderous war ever fought, prosecuted to the absolute defeat of the German forces and government. If you're using that as your baseline for what to expect from war I can understand how you've come to the conclusions you have. I can't understand however why you would consider such an outlying example of war as your baseline for comparison and assumption.
Last edited:
Megadeath
Well-known member
Okay. On the forum, you now have both me and Zachowon telling you that Russia are losing ground in the south. They've lost more there and around Kharkiv by a huge margin than they've taken around Sievierodonetsk, never mind the occupied territory around Kyiv they were forced to relinquish.
To extrapolate the end result of the war from the headline of one shared source seems the height of intellectual laziness and confirmation bias.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I don't want to read maps. I won't understand the finer details. I want words words words words words words words words words that I check out from multiple sources who talk about all the shit and understand shit I wasn't aware of.
The western media source is to confirm my suspicion about their enthusiasm about the coming ass raping Russia's getting for Putin to be fucked all for a sudden to slowly admit Russia's getting gains.
History Learner
Well-known member
I can tell reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but I would think anybody capable of taking more than a few sounds of thought would realize that argument is completely side stepping the issue of whether there is enough weapons in the first place to achieve that. As the video concedes in the first three minutes, the answer is definitively no, the West does not have the weapons or capacity to enable Ukraine to achieve that which leads to the issue of where the Russian Army isn't blown up and now NATO has no weapons.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I mean it was destructive but the Mongols, Romans ect did far more destructive things if we scale it up properly. Nations and people ceased to exist after their conquests after all.
History Learner
Well-known member
Not reflected in any data, but keep coping.
History Learner
Well-known member
The amount of projection you engage in is adorable, but remains as equally wrong as you are.
And which, again, shows the lack of basic understanding of the video creator and people like you peddling it. If you're solely relying upon air power or M1s, then you're no longer a combined arms force which is what the original argument was about; how NATO is this grand force capable of multi dimensional battle. Just ask the U.S. Armed Forces how well that strategy of overly relying on airpower or cruise missiles worked out for them in the GWOT.
Dear, how about instead of talking about things we both know you know very little about, you go look up ranges on Tomahawks and then transition that into the context of an Eastern European battlefield where distances are continental in size.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Really? That's pretty rich coming from you, after you tried to claim that the Russian branch of the BBC saying they had positively identified by name and rank 2,300 Russian forces in fact translated to a specific claim that such was the entirety of Russian losses.
Either your own reading comprehension is so abysmal you ought to step lightly accusing others of such, you were deliberately misrepresting the information hoping no one would bother to translate and read it themselves, or quite possibly both.
Pray tell, how you can have "continental" distances, confined to the battlefields of Eastern Europe? I.e. A part of a part of a single continent.
History Learner
Well-known member
Megadeath
Well-known member
How about you quote exactly where I said that?
All that map shows is you can't fit a continental distance into a battlefield confined to eastern Europe. So... Thanks, I guess?
bintananth
behind a desk
LA to NYC is roughly 1,000 miles longer than London to Moscow.How about you quote exactly where I said that?
EDIT: The treaty cruisers the US built during the 1930s could sail half way around the world without refueling because they were going to need that much range if the Panama Canal wasn't available and all of Latin America was hostile.
Last edited:
bintananth
behind a desk
I just jooked the number of type IX U-boats Germany built: a little less than 200.
Roughly one quarter of the German U-boats with enough range to be a nuisance off of the American East Coast had to deal with American civilians exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Back to rhetorics i see, fucking pointless.
>If you don't have a large stockpile of light ATGMs and MANPADS for your infantry you no longer have a combined arms force.
Oh well guess there were no combined arms forces in WW2. Damn genius take from our resident "rhetorics first, never knowing what the hell he's talking about" expert.
And again, pure rhetorics. Knowing very little about these things should be something for you to aspire to, because your knowledge of these matters seems to be about exactly nothing, if not going into negatives.
Battlefields? Pfff, more recent Tomahawk models have enough range to strike even Moscow itself from a warship located at the very unambitious as far as NATO naval supremacy goes Baltic coast of Germany. Obviously any transport infrastructure, command points and supply facilities etc. located near borders of NATO and Russia or it's allies are fully covered even by the older variants.
bintananth
behind a desk
You do not get to choose your army. You work with what you've got.
The Zulus, for example, managed to make things very difficult for the British Army. The Brits had breech-loading rifles. The Zulus used stone spears.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Technically, German army had large quantities of the eqivalents of those weapons. Early in the war that meant antitank rifles, later on they upgraded to essentially recoilless rifles and RPGs (Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust and similar).
>equivalents
My point exactly. Even if US military gave away its last Javelin, they still would have a shitload of LAW's, TOW's, AT4's and Carl Gustav's.