This will piss Seafort off...
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- IanKennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6173
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
WWI or WWII take your pick. If that's how you want to imagine your role who am I to try and stop you.Deepcrush wrote: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.
email, ergo spam
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
Most of the credit for the Pacific goes to America though, that was definitely their victory.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.Tsukiyumi wrote: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.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.Captain Seafort wrote:They started slapping the Germans around when Zhukov's Siberian divisions counter-attacked during the winter of 1941/42.Tsukiyumi wrote: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.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
- IanKennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6173
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
I said nothing of what happened once they joined the war, I only said they where late.Aaron wrote: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.
email, ergo spam
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15372
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.Tsukiyumi wrote: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.
Sure, but what's that got to do with the Russians?One thing for certain, D-day wouldn't have happened without American involvement.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
IanKennedy wrote:I said nothing of what happened once they joined the war, I only said they where late.Aaron wrote: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.
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
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- Reliant121
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 12263
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
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.
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.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Re: This will piss Seafort off...
Simply stating that there are subs in the area should keep the Argies home.Reliant121 wrote: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.
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.