|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted July 08, 2003 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're out of your mind on the 1973 war.
I think not, I've read 3 books on the war, all of which state that the Syrians were within easy reach of the golan bridges just before a counter attack by isolated vehicles from the brigade HQ covering that area. I'll dig out the best one I have by the Sunday times insight team if needs be.
Quote:
The Israelis held off 1400 Syrian tanks with 200. The Syrians also had 2800 APCs.
In well prepared, dug in positions behind anti-tank ditches, minefields and other things that compressed the syrian forces into kill zones for the Israelis who had been preparing for such an assault for 6 years. Hardly suprising. As for numbers, this utterly ignores the compact area of the fighting which negated this advantage largely.
Quote:
The Israelis held off 1400 Syrian tanks with 200. The Syrians also had 2800 APCs.
18 miles is a lot on such a front and a hell of a lot in a country the size of Israel. Israeli tanks were far superior to the Syrian/Egyptian ones, and better suited to the desert also.
Quote:
They shoved the Syrians back to their starting point by the 10th and by the 11th had turned to deal with the Iraqis and Jordanians. Israel suffered high casualties by it's standards but keep in mind by the end they had encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army. Hardly a disaster for Israel. How many nations attacked them from how many sides? Scoreboard is what counts.
You're entirely missing the relevant point. You suggested that the arabs,even combined could not beat Israel. With slightly more luck, speed and foresight in 1973 they WOULD have beaten Israel. Indeed the Israeli high command believed they might have beaten them. I never argued the Israelis did not win ultimately, though they were massacred in initial assualts on Egypt and from this period had great difficulty securing the surrounding of the 3rd army, I argued that they could have lost.
Quote:
nothing like it on the other side.
BS. Look into the Egyptian plans to cross the Suez Canal and you see a nigh on perfect plan that worked well enough that when Israel counter attacked, the Egyptian Sagger armed A/T troops blew the counter attack to pieces. Their main fault was their caution in not advancing beyond this and bringing pressure to bear beyond the sinai, though they had reasons behind this. Israel also made tons of mistakes, such as abbandonning their mobility advantage early on and using tank-only tactics which failed against infantry concentrations.
Quote:
Don't knock excessive ordnance. It can be very effective. Artillery is the god of war.
Granted, but it can also be a burden, slowing advances etc. Under the likes of Montgomery and others excessive ordanances meant slower, cautionary advances were the likes of patton or Rommel would do it in half
the time for example. Blitzkrieg in it's essence calls for fluid movement and exploitation of weaknesses, not careful, drawn out set piece assaults.
Oh and for god's sake could someone PLEASE show this guy how to use the quote function? 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 09, 2003 09:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You're out of your mind on the 1973 war.
"I think not, I've read 3 books on the war, all of which state that the Syrians were within easy reach of the golan bridges just before a counter attack by isolated vehicles from the brigade HQ covering that area. I'll dig out the best one I have by the Sunday times insight team if needs be."
Still, they did hold the line. It was Syrian build-up that that caused there to be the thin defensive force there that did hold the line. Israel is small you are right, and they don't have to go far to get to the country proper. That said, the Israelis did turn it around and stopped them cold.
Quote:
The Israelis held off 1400 Syrian tanks with 200. The Syrians also had 2800 APCs.
In well prepared, dug in positions behind anti-tank ditches, minefields and other things that compressed the syrian forces into kill zones for the Israelis who had been preparing for such an assault for 6 years. Hardly suprising. As for numbers, this utterly ignores the compact area of the fighting which negated this advantage largely.
"The kill zone actually was later. Once they went to line abreast they really got eaten up by the air forces and the tank reinforcements."
"By late October, both Cairo and Damascus were exposed to an Israeli advance, and only dire Soviet threats and Superpower intervention put an end to the hostilities and certain and complete Egyptian and Syrian defeat."-some website somewhere.
Quote:
The Israelis held off 1400 Syrian tanks with 200. The Syrians also had 2800 APCs.
18 miles is a lot on such a front and a hell of a lot in a country the size of Israel. Israeli tanks were far superior to the Syrian/Egyptian ones, and better suited to the desert also.
Quote:
They shoved the Syrians back to their starting point by the 10th and by the 11th had turned to deal with the Iraqis and Jordanians. Israel suffered high casualties by it's standards but keep in mind by the end they had encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army. Hardly a disaster for Israel. How many nations attacked them from how many sides? Scoreboard is what counts.
"You're entirely missing the relevant point. You suggested that the arabs,even combined could not beat Israel. With slightly more luck, speed and foresight in 1973 they WOULD have beaten Israel. Indeed the Israeli high command believed they might have beaten them. I never argued the Israelis did not win ultimately, though they were massacred in initial assualts on Egypt and from this period had great difficulty securing the surrounding of the 3rd army, I argued that they could have lost."
That's a pretty long wish list. Sure anyone COULD lose. In the end though, it was going to be doom and gloom for Syria and Egypt if noone had stepped in. Ok though, I guess they could've won sure.
Quote:
nothing like it on the other side.
"BS. Look into the Egyptian plans to cross the Suez Canal and you see a nigh on perfect plan that worked well enough that when Israel counter attacked, the Egyptian Sagger armed A/T troops blew the counter attack to pieces. Their main fault was their caution in not advancing beyond this and bringing pressure to bear beyond the sinai, though they had reasons behind this. Israel also made tons of mistakes, such as abbandonning their mobility advantage early on and using tank-only tactics which failed against infantry concentrations."
I cede you the point though, that part was well-executed. I was thinking more of the cases of the Israeli unit commanders exploiting seems in the Egyptian lines something the Egyptians don't really do following Soviet doctrine.
Quote:
Don't knock excessive ordnance. It can be very effective. Artillery is the god of war.
"Granted, but it can also be a burden, slowing advances etc. Under the likes of Montgomery and others excessive ordanances meant slower, cautionary advances were the likes of patton or Rommel would do it in half
the time for example. Blitzkrieg in it's essence calls for fluid movement and exploitation of weaknesses, not careful, drawn out set piece assaults.
Oh and for god's sake could someone PLEASE show this guy how to use the quote function? "
It seems to me that Blitzkrieg, while it hasn't been debunked per se, is not the end-all, be-all that it's commonly help up as. In fact, my understanding is that later on in WWII, combined arms is really what made the Germans so effective. Blitzkrieg works better it seems to me when surprise is still working for you. It worked in Russia up to a point, but then it came down to, not set piece exactly, but effective use of all arms. On a side note, I read recently that Manstein fully believed with a free hand he could have won a war of attrition with Russia, and I think this was post-Kursk.
I thought you might show me the quote function  I'm been trying to figure it out. I even tried to figure out how to obliterate my last post because I figured you wouldn't bother to wade through such a mess. Kudos to you for your iron will.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 13, 2003 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Still, they did hold the line. It was Syrian build-up that that caused there to be the thin defensive force there that did hold the line. Israel is small you are right, and they don't have to go far to get to the country proper. That said, the Israelis did turn it around and stopped them cold.
Indeed the held the line, I admire their courage born of desperation and skill in doing so. I just think it was based on much more than skill and bravery (though they are important naturally). The factors such as terrain, superiority of arms, and especially tanks, preparation time for an assualt and outside support also weigh just as heavily.
Quote:
"The kill zone actually was later. Once they went to line abreast they really got eaten up by the air forces and the tank reinforcements."
I dunno about the kill zone, perhaps literally, the term came into use much later in the war, but the situation right from the off was suited through channeling the direction and nature of the syrian assault caused a pretty similar effect.
Quote:
By late October, both Cairo and Damascus were exposed to an Israeli advance, and only dire Soviet threats and Superpower intervention put an end to the hostilities and certain and complete Egyptian and Syrian defeat."-some website somewhere.
Granted, but this does ignore some factors, such as the continual superpower interference during the conflict causing continual problems and solutions. Examples being that in the cease-fire America flew supplies of anti-tank and other ammunition from their german bases. The reason being Israel, in the early days of the war had literally used something like 85% of their stocks. Europe spent much of the war desperately trying to mediate between the two sides, with at varying amounts of sucess depending on the machinations of Russia and America. Roughly speaking, both sides strived to get their respective minor nation into a winning position without drawing the enemy side's backer into the war through the need to shore them up.
This leads to changing attitudes in both nations, Russia did not back Egypt/Syria to launch the war, but once the early sucesses were clear they did back a furthering of the war They later desperately sought peace terms when it was clear both were failing dismally. America backed peace plans early in the war, fearing the collapse of Israel was imminent, but changed to supporting war later when Israel gained the upper hand, supporting them during the cease fire to continue the favourable war then. It was only with the drive on Damascus that America tried again for peace through the fear of soviet counter measures to prevent the total arab collapse.
As for the Cairo/Damscus comment, it's a little far fetched to say the least to say that they'd have taken and held either. Whilst they had pushed back small elements of the Iraqui/Jordanian forces, a major push on either city would arouse the anger of the whole arab world. The forces advancing on Damascus were hardly enormous, though they had by and large shattered the Syrian force, any more comittment from the likes of the Jordanian/Iraqui forces would soon have halted such a drive. Cairo was simply out of the question IMO as when you factor in time constraints, distance, and available forces not tied down surrounding the 3rd army, Available, not yet comitted Egyptian Forces etc.
Quote:
That's a pretty long wish list. Sure anyone COULD lose. In the end though, it was going to be doom and gloom for Syria and Egypt if noone had stepped in. Ok though, I guess they could've won sure.
Not only could of, they almost certainly would of had they followed their planning a little closer and not paid attention to Russia. The basis of their assault was to smash the Israeli forces occupying recently taken land and drive a wedge into the country, sufficient for them to force Israel to a negotiated peace whereby they could negotiate for the return of those lands. Although limited, this was partly sucessful in that Egypt decimated the Israeli forces against them in the early days and secured a strong footing in the Sinai, whilst pressure was brought to bear on the Syrian front unsucessfully.
Where they failed was in their intentions were driven onwards towards the destruction of Israel, fuelled by Russia. This aim would have been sound if it had been the original one, the one, combined intention of both nations it may have suceeded, a drive deep into Israel before her reserves could deploy fully. Unfortunately, Egypt chose to remain near to their crossing points, and not exploit the dangerous gaps caused by the failiure of Israel's counter attacks. Syria, not given the chance due to the falure of their attack posed the greater threat, and had their opening plans been a little better co-ordinated could have wreaked havoc in Israel easily.
To draw the war on was to invite failiure, allowing the Israeli reserves to be deployed and through this, destroy the arab armies eventually. They changed their plan beyond their means to carry it out, and inevitably failed.
Quote:
I was thinking more of the cases of the Israeli unit commanders exploiting seems in the Egyptian lines something the Egyptians don't really do following Soviet doctrine.
An unfortunate example being naturally Sharon's troops who pretty much decimated themselves crossing the canal against direct orders. Though their results, namely the disabling of a number of SAM batteries etc was useful, it's still of some debate as to whether the high cost he inflicted on his forces was worth this result as he failed to secure a crossing point over the canal. Generally, the doctrine, equipment and leadership in the egyptian army was poor yes, had it been as good as their planners they would have swept into Israel easily.
Quote:
It seems to me that Blitzkrieg, while it hasn't been debunked per se, is not the end-all, be-all that it's commonly help up as. In fact, my understanding is that later on in WWII, combined arms is really what made the Germans so effective.
Well it's up for some debate really. Germany from 1939-42/3 relied heavily on Blitzkrieg, but using a small number of motorised and mechanised divisions. Their use of the tactic largely succeeded because they grouped these units together in one great big punch aimed at key targets rather than on a wide front. Unlike the prepoderance of equipment stocked up and needed by the allies, the germans tended away from this, using the fluidity of the battlefield and exploiting this. Only once in the whole campaign of 1944-45 did the western allied forces really use this strategy, from the Normandy breakout to the borders of Germany, which worked remarkably well. It was then that the prepoderance of supplies crippled the allies. The given reason for stopping the allies at the borders of Germany in Autumn 1944 was a lack of supplies. Since the war it has been suggested that Ike and the allied planners tended to grossly overestimate the minimum supply needs of their divisions. The allied armies could and would have been better served by a more conservative use of their supplies which would have enabled the race across france to perhaps continue deep into germany rather than halt.
As for the "Combined Arms" ideal, I would say their late war operations was hardly a choice as such for the germans. Where possible (which was admitedly rare), even in 1944, their forces operated in standard formations under similar tactics to the early war. They tended to form combined arms units, "Kampfgruppes" later in the war to amalgamate a large variety of shattered formations into a single force. This was usually not done by any great design, more a case of necessity due to the terrific losses suffered on both fronts. Early in the war though, their panzer formations did make full use of all arms, bringing infantry, artillery, engineers etc alongside their armour right from the start of WWII.
What I think also made them superior to their allied enemies was:
1) Vastly superior equipment, as a british vetran tank commander put it to a new arrival, if you run into a panther (a common german tank), you should send 5 shermans, and you'll loose 3-4 of them!
2) They fought over terrain often emminently suited to defensive warfare, such as Normandy's bocage
3) They had a large number of vetran troops who had served sometimes years on the russian front. They tended to rely for their quality of divisions more on it's officer's and senior NCO's than other armies such as the english who relied much on individual troop quality. This enabled them to rebuild shattered divisions over and over to roughly the same standard if they could ensure that the cadre survived.
As for manstein.... dream world I think would be the phrase, the combined weight of the production of Britain, America and Russia was far in excess of Germany, and whilst the germans did produce better tanks and other equipment, weight of numbers is what matters in wars of attrition. I think he might have been possibly able to withdraw to within the borders of germany south towards her balkan allies in the east, thereby giving them less land to defend and a better chance to hold it, but I highly doubt anything more than a defensive war was on the cards post Kursk. Too much of the german war effort had been frittered away by then, too many projects like Jet planes delayed, too many of her naval assets wasted and so on. Kursk IMO was far too late.
Quote functions:
This isn't gospel, but it works for me. Firstly, I never use the quote reply option, I use the new reply thingy. But I have the actual thread open in another window. When I want to quote something, I highlight the text using my mouse, and then copy this text (using the edit menu), then I go back to where I'm making my reply and paste it in (using the edit menu again).
You now have the text, but you need to make it a quote. Now you can either a) throw " " marks round it, or quote it properly. You do that by putting [qoute] at the start and [/qoute] at the end. Note I've mispelt quote so that it doesn't come out as a quotation, when you do it, spell quote right.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2003 04:03 AM |
|
|
A nice quote i found on use of radioactive DU weapons. It is grouped with all other WMD by the UN.
The United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted a resolution which included the following:
. . . "Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law,
. . . "Urged all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological. weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium."
29 August 1996 Adopted by 15 votes to 1 (the US)
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 17, 2003 01:47 PM |
|
|
How very typically hypocritical of the US....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2003 02:39 PM |
|
|
Hypocritical? IŽd rather call it far-seeing. They must have had a clue that they were going to use some of those WMDs (fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs, weaponry containing depleted uranium) in the future.
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 18, 2003 09:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for manstein.... dream world I think would be the phrase, the combined weight of the production of Britain, America and Russia was far in excess of Germany, and whilst the germans did produce better tanks and other equipment, weight of numbers is what matters in wars of attrition. I think he might have been possibly able to withdraw to within the borders of germany south towards her balkan allies in the east, thereby giving them less land to defend and a better chance to hold it, but I highly doubt anything more than a defensive war was on the cards post Kursk. Too much of the german war effort had been frittered away by then, too many projects like Jet planes delayed, too many of her naval assets wasted and so on. Kursk IMO was far too late.
Guess I'll see if those brackets were part of the instruction. Slight disagreement here, weight of numbers isn't the only thing that matters in a war of attrition. Level of casualties inflicted counts as well. If memory serves, Germany had a 2 or 2.5 to 1 advantage in casualties inflicted in the war. If given a free hand, I'm sure Manstein could've produced some good results fighting defensively, being allowed to pull back. Hitler put them in impossible positions all to often during the war and sometimes when told to hold out they didn't. Berlin itself is an example of this. Sometimes stand and die orders actually helped stabilize things, but not often. It's not as if Russia had infinite numbers of men to throw away. Possibly Kursk would indeed be too late, but who knows.
I'd also point out that while I agree with your production statements, it has to be pointed out that if Germany had had just a bit more on D-day it might've failed. A failure of that magnitude, might not have been surmountable. I can't say what would've happened after, but imagine if a lot of the west resources couldve been shifted east for defense. The Americans and British were facing most of the best quality German units after D-day. The east did not have the best, just the most.
Btw, tying into another thread, how do you think the panther stacks up against the T-34, any model. I've seen many recently call it the best overall of the war. Not disagreeing necessarily, but the panther being a German answer to it, I'd think it would surpass it in quality overall just because of the high level of german armor overall. I'd say it's only clear advantage to the panther was speed.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 18, 2003 11:00 PM |
|
|
YAY! You did it! 
Quote:
Slight disagreement here, weight of numbers isn't the only thing that matters in a war of attrition. Level of casualties inflicted counts as well.
Naturally, but the germans would KO say 3 allied tanks per their loss, but the allies would build perhaps 5 times the number of tanks the germans did throughout most of the war. That's not including aspects linked such as the bombing campaign, naval conflicts etc which all had their effect also, and in all of these the ratio of allied vehicles built to german, even comparing just Russia or USA was way too much by 1942 or 43 for even Manstein to do any more than meekly withdraw their forces slowly into within the Reich.
Also, despite Manstien's claims, the results of 1940 were simply not achieveable by 1943-45. The allied armies of the late war were not even using a remotely similar doctrine to 1940, and the supply situation within germany by 1943 was catastrophic, unlike 1940. Manstien was an excellent commander, if memory serves when he defended the Kharkov region he directly defied a no retreat order from Hitler and withdrew his forces, only to counter-attack days later and re-capture the city now that he had been re-inforced. One of the few to get away with such defiance.
Quote:
It's not as if Russia had infinite numbers of men to throw away. Possibly Kursk would indeed be too late, but who knows.
I don't know about infinite, but they had much untapped manpower as such. Many millions of ex-red army troops melted away in the early days of the war only to become partisans later. If necessary, these could have been re-drafted properly, along with those from the recently retaken lands as the russians moved west, the people's there more clearer of the reality of Nazi rule.
Quote:
I'd also point out that while I agree with your production statements, it has to be pointed out that if Germany had had just a bit more on D-day it might've failed.
I'd say that's quite debatable actually. It's commonly said that Hitler denying the use of the Panzers on 6th June caused the immediate battle, campaign and war to fail. Only trouble I have with this is that any large scale movement of troops and vehicles on this day, in daylight would have been slaughtered by the allied air cover, as happened to Panzer Lehr Division barely days after D-day. It's hard to see how, in such a climate, short of heavier beach defences D-day could have been stopped by Rommel's plan for panzers on the beach.
Assuming it had, russia would have been in trouble, but the West would and could have shifted it's resources to a combination of:
a) Helping Russia directly with supplies
b) Increasing the bombing campaign
c) Shift major numbers of troops to Italy to force a route northwards
d) Perhaps launch and offensive against the Balkan region
As for the T34, there's basically (warning, over-simplfication coming up, there's dozens of marks, but essentially 2 main ones) 2 main variants, the T34/76 and T34/85, the number after the forward slash denoting the legnth of the gun barrel.
Compare a T34/76 to a panther and the panther in a straight fight and the panther will win pretty much garunteed, it's armour was better, it's gun was better, and it was faster. Early clashes of these give a wrong impression as the early panthers were plauged by engine problems (due to being rushed) and failed, but later marks wiped the floor with the T34/76.
Compare a T34/85 to a panther and it's pretty close to a fair fight. They both have excellent armour and a gun that could knock the other out, and neither has the edge on speed. The T34/85 didn't really appear in large numbers though until early 1944 when the panther was already serving as 1 half of all the tanks in Panzer divisions and had proved itself.
Personally I prefer the panther, for it's overall manouverability and slightly better gun to the T34/85. What is interesting is that the russians didn't stop with the T34, producing Heavier tanks, similar in style and ability to the Tiger and King Tiger of the German armies. On the western side though, allied crews found themselves restricted to the ludicrously thinly armoured and feebly armed (for that time) Sherman for most of the war. Though the British upgraded it by adding the excellent 17pndr gun (capable of KO'ing a panther from the front!) and the americans by adding a 76mm Higher Velocity gun, the sherman was woefully underclassed compared to either the German or Russian tanks. Only in 1945, with the Comet (british) and Perhsing (american) did the west produce tanks even close to on the same level as their opposition.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 19, 2003 11:22 PM |
|
|
Just to get back on topic, I was just watching a BBC report, in which I heard a US solider saying to an Iraqui civilian (after US troops had been mortared):
"Either you tell us where the mortars are, or we come back with our tanks and we'll drive over your fields and your houses"
And later (though they cut into this bit with the reporter talking over the officer) an officer said "this town will be punished"
Now forgive me, but I don't think this kind of attitude is going to win anyone's hearts and minds, and doesn't quite remind me of what I'd imagine a liberating force should be going around doing....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 22, 2003 04:01 PM |
|
|
Overwhelmed....
George Walker bush ( Our President Thnigy) Just Warned Syria AND Iran THat He might use Military Action against them. HOW? How DO we Fight in AFghaghanastain, Iraq, HAve 300,000 Troops in South Koreo, FIght Syris, and Fight Iran. US forces will be Decimated. And, Have u heard About Sciri? IT fought Iran in the Iran_-Iraq war then fought saddam, Now Is Getting hHundreds of Recruits Every Day for Several Dayd. They Already had Between 4,000 and 15,000 Men. The Say that they will Make A Revolutiion. Not Conmventional Warfare.
____________
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
posted July 22, 2003 04:25 PM |
|
|
OVerwhelmed (Continued.)
AL Quida Claiims To attacking AND KIlling Off US Troops. One by one and two by two. Scary.US Soldieres Are disrespecting The Iraqies. Syaria HAs An Army of 215,000, AN Air force of 100,000 A Navy of 6,000. And A Large Air Defenc=se System (Mr. Bush Dosent like that.) IRan IS Much Much Stronger. Bloodeshed would be Bad On both Sides. They have an Army of 350,000 Really big. An Internal Se curity force, The Revolutionary Gaurd. Numbering 125,000 Strong. A Rural Police Force Totlaing 40,000. A Nvy with A number of 26,600 People In it. AN Air Force of 45,000 And 200,00 Men And Women In a reserve force. That Totlas Over 700,00. Gigantic
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 01:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Either you tell us where the mortars are, or we come back with our tanks and we'll drive over your fields and your houses"
And later (though they cut into this bit with the reporter talking over the officer) an officer said "this town will be punished
Not to be picky, but the topic is kinda dead, the war is largely over and the topic was "attack iraq?".
That said, well boo hoo hoo, whose concerned about winning hearts and minds when they are mortaring you? Plenty of other hearts and minds not trying to kill us I'm sure. Kill people and break things that's what they are supposed to do.
To this other guy below you, I'm sure the U.S. military if it had to, could handle Iran and Syria. We have other units that can be scraped together beyond what we've used up to now, which was just a few divisions. Not as trained up in some cases but I'm sure they'd do fine. The qualitative superiority of our arms allows us to face those kinds of numbers with significanly less manpower. A lot of men, does not necessarily a good army make. What exactly are the Iranians going to do against an Abrams brigade? At any rate, it's all a bit premature right now.
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 01:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd say that's quite debatable actually. It's commonly said that Hitler denying the use of the Panzers on 6th June caused the immediate battle, campaign and war to fail. Only trouble I have with this is that any large scale movement of troops and vehicles on this day, in daylight would have been slaughtered by the allied air cover, as happened to Panzer Lehr Division barely days after D-day. It's hard to see how, in such a climate, short of heavier beach defences D-day could have been stopped by Rommel's plan for panzers on the beach.
You missed my point a little bit here or at least the particulars. I know all about the scenario you are referring to, and it's very debatable what would've worked. I agree more with Rundstedt's counterattack plan overall, but Hitler mucked them both up. I'm speaking more to an overall strategic what-if. If the Germans had less forces on the eastern front, they might've been better served on D-day.
Quote:
Assuming it had, russia would have been in trouble, but the West would and could have shifted it's resources to a combination of:
a) Helping Russia directly with supplies
b) Increasing the bombing campaign
c) Shift major numbers of troops to Italy to force a route northwards
d) Perhaps launch and offensive against the Balkan region
a. Russia was already getting direct help with supplies. Most of their trucks were ours. It's been said many times in many places that the war would've been lost otherwise.
b. Strategic bombing. Hmmm. Does not a war win.
c. Plausible, but the scenario that's been envisioned by historian Stephen Ambrose, is the probable outcry from the American public if D-day had failed. A disaster such as that might've spelled doom for the Roosevelt administration. What we can envision after this point to me has got to be considered murky. Think of the setback in terms of loss of trained men. Germany would've been safe in the west for a considerable time, allowing them to concentrate east again, allowing them to fully utilize the new tech. Anything goes after that point. You and I don't know what happens after d-day fails, only that it will be much much worse. It could've failed though.
Quote:
don't know about infinite, but they had much untapped manpower as such. Many millions of ex-red army troops melted away in the early days of the war only to become partisans later. If necessary, these could have been re-drafted properly, along with those from the recently retaken lands as the russians moved west, the people's there more clearer of the reality of Nazi rule.
I don't know if I can accept that at your word. I think Russia was fairly exhausted at the end of the war in terms of the able-bodied fighting men. It is a fact that they lost the most in all categories.
Thanks for your thoughts on armor. I was aware of the heavier Russian tanks if only because I played a lot of pc games. BTW, if your ever in the U.S. try to get into Aberdeen proving grounds, they have practically every piece of armor from the war. A lot of it is starting to corrode badly now being outside with just a coat of paint. Anzio Annie(Leopold) is in excellent shape though. Tiger II, Elephant, Jadgetiger, T-34, you name it, it's there.
____________
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 02:03 AM |
|
|
Moral...
Well, even thoguh the US has Much better wepons and training, Moral, Also Matters. The US Troops HAve Very Low Moral. And GW bush Warns North Korea AND N. Korea Warns the US, N Korea HAs almost 1,000,000 troops! The US has noo Chance. The N korean Troops HAve A Great Fighting Spirit Moral ANd enen WANT to fight the US.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted July 23, 2003 03:25 AM |
|
|
My Humble Opinion
Quote:
Well, even though the US has Much better wepons and training, Moral, Also Matters. The US Troops HAve Very Low Moral. And GW bush Warns North Korea AND N. Korea Warns the US, N Korea HAs almost 1,000,000 troops! The US has noo Chance. The N korean Troops HAve A Great Fighting Spirit Moral ANd enen WANT to fight the US.
If North Korea antagonizes the US, especially if they are foolish enough to ever declare 'war' on the US, you will most likely see the full might of the United States Armed Forces. There will be no 'holding back' or 'precision bombings' like the war in Iraq. You will see the most powerful military force in the world unleashed and unbridled, and the United States military will roll over North Korea with very few setbacks. The US would bomb North Korea back to the Stone Age, destroy their command-and-control nodes & communication networks, and the result would be 1,000,000 demoralized, chaotic, and scared-for-their-lives North Korean soldiers. Maybe if all the North Korean soldiers had the discipline and training like the proven ROK Marines, then North Korea would have a chance. With that said, let me quote a statement from the ROK Marines Veteran Association homepage:
"Now, the ROK Marines is ranked second in the world for landing battle performance following the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and are still evolving as a "small but powerful force"."
As for the 'morale' of the troops of the United States military, I do not know where you are getting your information that it is 'low'. The United States military just finished 'rolling over' Iraq in three weeks, and even with the small resistance fighting and terrorist attacks still going on, the United States had lost less than 150 soldiers (over half lost after major operations were declared over). The morale of the United States military has not been this high since the first Persian Gulf war, and along with the support of the majority of the population and a pro-military president, I would not want to draw the attention of the United States military, no matter what country or how large of a military it may possess.
The best thing anyone can do right now (for those who believe in a god or supernatural force), is to do what I do, and pray for peace. "Make love, not war."
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 09:11 AM |
|
|
OH happy day...oh happy day...the wicked, evil, detestable sons of the Saddam are dead...killed like the swine deserve....long live the coalition and the liberated Iraqi people. Much praise to our wise leaders Bush and Blair! The world continues to reap the benifits of their courage and wisdom!
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 09:44 PM |
|
|
Saddam sons
Well, U said that it was good for saddams Sons to Die. Yes, they were very bad people but, Alas, Walking into a House and showirng Everyone in it with 30 calibre bullets is Murder.
|
|
evilchikin
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 09:50 PM |
|
|
Casuatlies
ANd as for you, Khayman, casulty number is not 150. It is 275. Thasts including traffic accideint and wot not. But Troops Killed in traffic Accidednes still Lower the Other ones Moral. A soldiers best buddy could be in a car and it flips over and he dies. Or another can ne in A Hummer and an RPG lands in his car and it explodes. The soldires Will Get afraid, and sad. Thatds one reason why the Moral is so low. and a seinire Officier nSpoke out agaisnt Rumsfelt.
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 10:35 PM |
|
|
Way to dispute one little factoid without addressing Khayman's actual message evil. Morale in every country you mentioned is very high I'm sure. Silly boy.
____________
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2003 10:38 PM |
|
|
Khayman
Quote:
As for the 'morale' of the troops of the United States military, I do not know where you are getting your information that it is 'low'. The United States military just finished 'rolling over' Iraq in three weeks, and even with the small resistance fighting and terrorist attacks still going on, the United States had lost less than 150 soldiers (over half lost after major operations were declared over). The morale of the United States military has not been this high since the first Persian Gulf war, and along with the support of the majority of the population and a pro-military president, I would not want to draw the attention of the United States military, no matter what country or how large of a military it may possess.
In my oppinon (im not an american nor in the army so it may not be valid but..) rolling over Iraq in 3 weeks in my oppinion would just lower moral more. i mean Irak had no power to speak of really, they were no match for the U.S. the fact it took 3 weeks to accomplish (and still not confirmation on Saddams death) is completely unexceptible, they should have been able to accomplish this task much much quicker with many many less casualties, on both sides.
Compairing Irak to South Korea is like compairing apples to coconuts, a apple is hard, but nothing compaired to the tuffness of a coconut. (i like that analogy)
Quote:
Moral...
Well, even thoguh the US has Much better wepons and training, Moral, Also Matters. The US Troops HAve Very Low Moral. And GW bush Warns North Korea AND N. Korea Warns the US, N Korea HAs almost 1,000,000 troops! The US has noo Chance. The N korean Troops HAve A Great Fighting Spirit Moral ANd enen WANT to fight the US.
I dont know if i would go as far as to say they want to fight the US. they know they would lose*(see below). what they want is the world to recognize them as a force to be reconed with, they are barganing, they want the world to give them anything they want, they do not want a war, [bold]they want the states to back out of a battle[/bold]
think about it, if you tell people you are building WMDs and nobody chooses to stop you, then whats stoping you from building more and more? once they get enough they will be unstopable, and they will be able to push the world around.
*yes the US would win) but the US would have assistance in the war, Canada, Europe, China (maybe) would all help fight South Korea because they are more of a threat (unstable, with nuclear weapons))
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
