This will piss Seafort off...

[Aaron]

I'll agree with that.

[Deepcrush]

The issue is that the extreme was a requirement for survival here and populations are generally slow for change. The US being as young as it is in the global sense is simply in need of time.

[IanKennedy]

I guess this is related to WWII. A war you allowed to start, a war we funded you through, a war that didn't even involve us and yet we still sent aid to you at the cost of our sailors prior to formal entry. Yes its so rude of us to bother helping you and later saving you from your mistakes. Its also so very rude that we bothered to build up before committing to the war after a near total economic collapse. I guess we should have just stayed out of it and left you alone from the start huh.

WWI or WWII take your pick. If that's how you want to imagine your role who am I to try and stop you.

[Aaron]

What an odd statement. The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany on it's own eventually, Churchill has even been accused of delaying the invasion of Europe so the Soviets would do more of the work and take more losses.

Most of the credit for the Pacific goes to America though, that was definitely their victory.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm wondering now how well the soviets would've done without the $11 billion dollars worth of gear, food, supplies and weapons America sent them via lend-lease. Seems like after they got the millions of tons of aid, they started slapping the Germans around, not before.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm wondering now how well the soviets would've done without the $11 billion dollars worth of gear, food, supplies and weapons America sent them via lend-lease. Seems like after they got the millions of tons of aid, they started slapping the Germans around, not before.

They started slapping the Germans around when Zhukov's Siberian divisions counter-attacked during the winter of 1941/42. They would have driven the Germans back all all the way to Berlin even without western help - it would simply have taken a lot longer, as they would have had to either build the trucks to get their kit there themselves.

[Aaron]

Don't forget that the Red Army had been purged before the war and most of their competent commanders where dead. LL certainly had a role to play and I imagine they were grateful for whatever they could get but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the winter did most of the hard work for us. Especially as the German's hadn't planned on a winter campaign and really screwed the pooch kit wise.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm wondering now how well the soviets would've done without the $11 billion dollars worth of gear, food, supplies and weapons America sent them via lend-lease. Seems like after they got the millions of tons of aid, they started slapping the Germans around, not before.

They started slapping the Germans around when Zhukov's Siberian divisions counter-attacked during the winter of 1941/42.

This is after we sent them millions of tons of supplies. I'm certainly not suggesting the Soviets wouldn't have won in the end, but who knows if they really could've pushed all the way to Berlin without all that aid. War might've ended in a truce, or some other stalemate. One thing for certain, D-day wouldn't have happened without American involvement.

[IanKennedy]

What an odd statement. The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany on it's own eventually, Churchill has even been accused of delaying the invasion of Europe so the Soviets would do more of the work and take more losses.

Most of the credit for the Pacific goes to America though, that was definitely their victory.

I said nothing of what happened once they joined the war, I only said they where late.

[Teaos]

I think thr Russians would have ground to a halt just like the Germans did and would have split Europe in two but instead of Soviet and West it would have been Soviet and Nazis. Anyones guess what would happen after both sides had time to lick their wounds.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm certainly not suggesting the Soviets wouldn't have won in the end, but who knows if they really could've pushed all the way to Berlin without all that aid. War might've ended in a truce, or some other stalemate.

Not a chance in hell. For the Soviet Union "win" was defined as "complete destruction of Germany as a military force and hammer and sickle flying over the Reichstag". If the allies hadn't opened a second front they would've kept going until they reached the Atlantic. It would have taken years without allied involvement, possibly even decades, but they would have kept going until they did it.

One thing for certain, D-day wouldn't have happened without American involvement.

Sure, but what's that got to do with the Russians?

[Aaron]

What an odd statement. The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany on it's own eventually, Churchill has even been accused of delaying the invasion of Europe so the Soviets would do more of the work and take more losses.

Most of the credit for the Pacific goes to America though, that was definitely their victory.

I said nothing of what happened once they joined the war, I only said they where late.

No, no, i should have said what an odd argument in general. At this point it doesn't have really matter who did what, unless your looking to rewrite history or combating it.

[Captain Seafort]

Given the circumstances of Deep, as usual, whinging about who's doing what, I think pointing out the habitual tardiness of the US is warranted.

[Reliant121]

In pure naval terms I really don't see how the Argentinian forces are so able to best the RN down there. As far as I can find on the internet (limited source, I know) The Argentinians don't actually have a surface combatant that routinely makes its way round the Falklands while we recently parked our most modern warship out there; a warship that while not designed or itself equipped for Anti ship warfare is eminently armed with the facilities to engage and eliminate surface combatants (its Lynx compliment). As for the entire navies themselves, it becomes even more ludicrous to say that the Argentinians are able to do the damage you seem to suggest; We have a grand total of 18 surface combatants, all of which are able to be deployed and while not necessarily modern are reasonably advanced. Compare that to 4 Argentinian ships. Numbers alone seem to suggest we've got a bit of an upper hand.

Sure, the RN is nowhere near the international force of destruction it used to be but it is by no means irrelevant. Its just not quite as vast and all encompassing as the USN. Proportionally I think we do quite well, since the UK is smaller than a large majority of individual US states.

[Aaron]

In pure naval terms I really don't see how the Argentinian forces are so able to best the RN down there. As far as I can find on the internet (limited source, I know) The Argentinians don't actually have a surface combatant that routinely makes its way round the Falklands while we recently parked our most modern warship out there; a warship that while not designed or itself equipped for Anti ship warfare is eminently armed with the facilities to engage and eliminate surface combatants (its Lynx compliment). As for the entire navies themselves, it becomes even more ludicrous to say that the Argentinians are able to do the damage you seem to suggest; We have a grand total of 18 surface combatants, all of which are able to be deployed and while not necessarily modern are reasonably advanced. Compare that to 4 Argentinian ships. Numbers alone seem to suggest we've got a bit of an upper hand.

Sure, the RN is nowhere near the international force of destruction it used to be but it is by no means irrelevant. Its just not quite as vast and all encompassing as the USN. Proportionally I think we do quite well, since the UK is smaller than a large majority of individual US states.

Simply stating that there are subs in the area should keep the Argies home.

As for the world power stuff, it's not that we've gotten weaker, we outgun our WWII navies easily, it's that US is in a class of it's own. None of the rest of us can or will afford anything similar and America has a different outlook on what it wants its military to do.