WWII Equipment - Vics, Aircraft and Kit

[heydaralon]

I gave figures. And you quoted some German guy. Cool.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Look at the figures buddy. There are other places to verify this. You think that losing six to one or eight to one in tanks demonstrates good strategy? I'm glad you aren't commanding American soldiers. They also lost like 3 planes for every German one they shot down.

Yes, nice figures. The sole determination of weather a strategy is good or not is the result of that strategy. Even if every German soldier was as good as ten Soviets, the Soviets always seemed to have an eleventh.
No one cares how brilliant Charles XII was at Holowczyn; no one cares how brilliant Napoleon was at Borodino; even if you're stupid enough to call Kursk any kind of victory AT ALL for the Germans, the fact that their entire front collapsed shortly thereafter should weigh into your considerations.
And at the end of World War Two in Europe, the score was: Germany zero; Soviets WON.

[heydaralon]

Look at the figures buddy. There are other places to verify this. You think that losing six to one or eight to one in tanks demonstrates good strategy? I'm glad you aren't commanding American soldiers. They also lost like 3 planes for every German one they shot down.

Yes, nice figures. The sole determination of weather a strategy is good or not is the result of that strategy. Even if every German soldier was as good as ten Soviets, the Soviets always seemed to have an eleventh.
No one cares how brilliant Charles XII was at Holowczyn; no one cares how brilliant Napoleon was at Borodino; even if you're stupid enough to call Kursk any kind of victory AT ALL for the Germans, the fact that their entire front collapsed shortly thereafter should weigh into your considerations.
And at the end of World War Two in Europe, the score was: Germany zero; Soviets WON.

Not denying the victory, just pointing out the way it was achieved, which was my whole point. Russians did not give two shits about the lives of their soldiers, which is why they sustained millions of pointless casualties, and paid high costs in manpower and machinery for small gains. In my book, that does get you points off for generalship.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Not denying the victory, just pointing out the way it was achieved, which was my whole point. Russians did not give two shits about the lives of their soldiers, which is why they sustained millions of pointless casualties, and paid high costs in manpower and machinery for small gains. In my book, that does get you points off for generalship.

Whose casualties are more pointless--those who suffer them and win, or those who suffer them and lose? Kursk wasn't a small gain--it wasn't about the territory--it was about Germany's being able to mount a major offensive ever again (the Battle of the Bulge was nothing in comparison.) For not giving two shits about their soldiers, it's very strange how they ended up in the summer of 1945 with the largest, best equipped, most experienced, and best led army on earth.
When it comes to history, at least, you should read more and write less.

[heydaralon]

Not denying the victory, just pointing out the way it was achieved, which was my whole point. Russians did not give two shits about the lives of their soldiers, which is why they sustained millions of pointless casualties, and paid high costs in manpower and machinery for small gains. In my book, that does get you points off for generalship.

Whose casualties are more pointless--those who suffer them and win, or those who suffer them and lose? Kursk wasn't a small gain--it wasn't about the territory--it was about Germany's being able to mount a major offensive ever again (the Battle of the Bulge was nothing in comparison.) For not giving two shits about their soldiers, it's very strange how they ended up in the summer of 1945 with the largest, best equipped, most experienced, and best led army on earth.
When it comes to history, at least, you should read more and write less.

You should read about how Stalin deported millions of his soldiers who won him half if Europe to Siberia because he was worried that they experienced Western contamination and scold less. He really knew how to take care of his soldiers. Whats funny is if someone was on here talking about socialized medicine you would be on here biting their head off about how wasteful the government is, and cite the soviet unions disastrous policies. You would be right. When I bring up that the same Soviet planning mentality that wasted millions of soldiers, lost thousands if tanks etc you are telling me that the Soviet Army was great. They were among the most successful armies of all time, but They absolutely view their soldiers as expendable cannon fodder.

[Fife]

Winning the War on Nazis involves the same cost as the War on Disease, the War on Crime, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, or just about any other state run war.

The metric is the same: human life, pain, hunger, and sickness.

If you wanna win, pony up the price.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

You should read about how Stalin deported millions of his soldiers who won him half if Europe to Siberia because he was worried that they experienced Western contamination and scold less. He really knew how to take care of his soldiers. Whats funny is if someone was on here talking about socialized medicine you would be on here biting their head off about how wasteful the government is, and cite the soviet unions disastrous policies. You would be right. When I bring up that the same Soviet planning mentality that wasted millions of soldiers, lost thousands if tanks etc you are telling me that the Soviet Army was great. They were among the most successful armies of all time, but They absolutely view their soldiers as expendable cannon fodder.

I read Solzhenitsyn when you were working on your ABC's, kid.
You may be confusing me with someone else.

[heydaralon]

You should read about how Stalin deported millions of his soldiers who won him half if Europe to Siberia because he was worried that they experienced Western contamination and scold less. He really knew how to take care of his soldiers. Whats funny is if someone was on here talking about socialized medicine you would be on here biting their head off about how wasteful the government is, and cite the soviet unions disastrous policies. You would be right. When I bring up that the same Soviet planning mentality that wasted millions of soldiers, lost thousands if tanks etc you are telling me that the Soviet Army was great. They were among the most successful armies of all time, but They absolutely view their soldiers as expendable cannon fodder.

I read Solzhenitsyn when you were working on your ABC's, kid.
You may be confusing me with someone else.

'Whatever you say Comrade...

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

'Whatever you say Comrade...

Отлично сработано, Молодец!

[C-Mag]

Not denying the victory, just pointing out the way it was achieved, which was my whole point. Russians did not give two shits about the lives of their soldiers, which is why they sustained millions of pointless casualties, and paid high costs in manpower and machinery for small gains. In my book, that does get you points off for generalship.

Whose casualties are more pointless--those who suffer them and win, or those who suffer them and lose? Kursk wasn't a small gain--it wasn't about the territory--it was about Germany's being able to mount a major offensive ever again (the Battle of the Bulge was nothing in comparison.) For not giving two shits about their soldiers, it's very strange how they ended up in the summer of 1945 with the largest, best equipped, most experienced, and best led army on earth.
When it comes to history, at least, you should read more and write less.

This is true, if you handicap the US Forces.
1. First, you have to take away US Nuclear capability (granted it was limited)
2. You need to limit the evaluation of military forces to just the more traditional ground army
3. Don't consider Lend Lease program on a countries ability to sustain war

Handicap the US with the above, and yes, the Soviets are the best.


The entire goal of war is, at the cessation of hostilities, to have your guy on the ground with his weapon and the enemy no longer armed and contesting the ground. No one really cares about all the tactical battle the US military won in Vietnam or the body counts, right.

That being said, I've always been curious about which armies did the best at inflicting casualties. I heard a joke once about the Japanese in China in WWII.
Concerned Chinese Officer: The Japanese are killing 20 of our Soldiers for every Soldier we kill.
Calm Chinese Officer: Good, that means, the Japanese will soon run out of Soldiers.

Any sources on kill-to-casualty ratios?