War in Ukraine

#2,301
#2,301
Burhead said:




Guess one benefit for Putin will be the ability to test his new hypersonic weapons in actual combat.
Click to expand...

I also think the anti-satellite weapon test from Russia a few months ago is connected to the potential Ukranian invasion.
 
#2,302
#2,302
LouderVol said:
Uh the winter two years later?

Barbarossa was in june 41. Stalingrad ended in feb of 43, and didnt start until late 42.

Stalingrad was fought with a TON of american equipment.

Hitler being a complete meth addict trying to dictate what his troops did, and having an ego, turned the tide. It probably wouldnt have mattered if the Soviets lost any or all of their major eastern cities. Germany couldnt do two fronts. Stalingrad sped up their defeat, but wasnt the key of it.
Click to expand...

Stalingrad is where they lost but they started losing six months in at the start of winter.

And never did I say US weapons didn’t help.

They helped all allies.

The defeat in a Russia sped it up as they were running low on oil just like Japan.

Their infrastructure hurt them a lot too which is why Dwight built the interstate system when he got back.

You already know this though. We are simply splitting Herr’s.
 
#2,303
#2,303
NEO said:
Stalingrad is where they lost but they started losing six months in at the start of winter.

And never did I say US weapons didn’t help.

They helped all allies.

The defeat in a Russia sped it up as they were running low on oil just like Japan.

Their infrastructure hurt them a lot too which is why Dwight built the interstate system when he got back.

You already know this though. We are simply splitting Herr’s.
Click to expand...

Germany was more of a threat then remembered today. People cite how overwhelmed they were but point to USSR population and resources prior to invasion. With Germany occupying Russia land that constituted 50% of its population, it had even things up. Had Germany surrounded or bypassed Stalingrad instead of sucking their best troops into it, things might have been different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92 and NEO
#2,304
#2,304
Are Warnings About "Imminent Russian Invasion Of Ukraine" Any More Than A Deep-State Intel Operation? | ZeroHedge

There are interest groups in Ukraine that want Nord Stream 2 sanctioned as it going live in June 2022 would end $3bn of transit revenues that the Ukraine government gets.

The oligarchs in the Ukraine owe a lot of their wealth to milking the state budgets.

Then there are Neo-Nazi militias that were folded into the military without much ‘re-education’ who dream of taking Donbass region back and like to wear WWII Galician division insignia.
Click to expand...

By claiming Putin might invade imminently they justify sending more arms (Germany would block a NATO MAP) and can provide NATO training to an Army that has neo-Nazi elements within it

Then when Putin does not invade they will be able to claim diplomatic victory and claim that they stared down the Russian threat.

But it is almost certainly built on a series of false narratives and manipulated analysis and conclusions.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#2,305
#2,305
volbound1700 said:
Germany was more of a threat then remembered today. People cite how overwhelmed they were but point to USSR population and resources prior to invasion. With Germany occupying Russia land that constituted 50% of its population, it had even things up. Had Germany surrounded or bypassed Stalingrad instead of sucking their best troops into it, things might have been different.
Click to expand...

Germany was THE military power in both World Wars with the exception of maybe France at the beginning of WW1. The British had better navies but in terms of the average fighting soldier, infantry weapons, and artillery the edge went to Germany. The problem for Germany in both wars was the same. It bit off more than it could chew and became a war of attrition that it could not afford to wage. Blitzkrieg is a great strategy when you have the element of surprise, there was no element of surprise after 1940-41. As in Russia, the Germans were always going to lose if the invasion wasn't a short decisive victory. You are correct, had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad the outcome may have been different but that is also debatable simply because the Russians would have been willing to sacrifice 50 million soldiers if necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#2,306
#2,306
landscapingvol said:
Germany was THE military power in both World Wars with the exception of maybe France at the beginning of WW1. The British had better navies but in terms of the average fighting soldier, infantry weapons, and artillery the edge went to Germany. The problem for Germany in both wars was the same. It bit off more than it could chew and became a war of attrition that it could not afford to wage. Blitzkrieg is a great strategy when you have the element of surprise, there was no element of surprise after 1940-41. As in Russia, the Germans were always going to lose if the invasion wasn't a short decisive victory. You are correct, had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad the outcome may have been different but that is also debatable simply because the Russians would have been willing to sacrifice 50 million soldiers if necessary.
Click to expand...

Yep...the German military in WW2 was built on blitzkrieg....overwhelming the opposition with speed and surprise. When Barbarossa bogged down in December of ‘41 it was all but over. Wasn’t built for wars of attrition. Imagine the resources involved in supplying a 1800 mile long front, 800 or so miles away.
 
#2,307
#2,307
Pacer92 said:
Yep...the German military in WW2 was built on blitzkrieg....overwhelming the opposition with speed and surprise. When Barbarossa bogged down in December of ‘41 it was all but over. Wasn’t built for wars of attrition. Imagine the resources involved in supplying a 1800 mile long front, 800 or so miles away.
Click to expand...

As stated, the Soviets were pretty beat up as well, only once they started pushing Germany back did they recover. Keep in mind that Germany still had the initiative until the Battle of Kursk in 1943 which was the real battle that broke Germany.

I do think the Battle of Britain hurt Germany a lot because they lost some of their best pilots in that engagement. Blitzkrieg was highly dependent on air superiority and close air support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#2,308
#2,308
volbound1700 said:
As stated, the Soviets were pretty beat up as well, only once they started pushing Germany back did they recover. Keep in mind that Germany still had the initiative until the Battle of Kursk in 1943 which was the real battle that broke Germany.

I do think the Battle of Britain hurt Germany a lot because they lost some of their best pilots in that engagement. Blitzkrieg was highly dependent on air superiority and close air support.
Click to expand...

I agree the the Battle of Britain hurt Germany quite a bit. Not only were good pilots and aircraft lost, but the fact that Britain/US were still able to wreak havoc on the German industrial complex.

I truly believe that Kursk was a desperate attempt to swing momentum by Hitler. The Germans were mostly on the defensive after Stalingrad. Indeed, Germany lost all initiative after Kursk...and a crippling blow to their armored division’s.
 
#2,309
#2,309
Ok there was just a silly banner on Fox News just now.

“Germany not sending weapons, troops to Europe”

C’mon guys at least throw a full cheek at it and make a half assed effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#2,311
#2,311
volbound1700 said:
As stated, the Soviets were pretty beat up as well, only once they started pushing Germany back did they recover. Keep in mind that Germany still had the initiative until the Battle of Kursk in 1943 which was the real battle that broke Germany.

I do think the Battle of Britain hurt Germany a lot because they lost some of their best pilots in that engagement. Blitzkrieg was highly dependent on air superiority and close air support.
Click to expand...

That is partially true, the battle of Kursk occurred in an area where the Russians had already fought them to a stalemate and Hitler could not afford the losses he was going to endure materially at Kursk. It was very similar to the Battle of the Bulge in that the outcome by that point in the war was inevitable, those battles just delayed the outcome in the short term but sped it up in the long term. After the Battle of Kursk, the German military was pushed back rapidly. Germany lost the initiative after Stalingrad, Kursk was just an idiotic gamble by Hitler in the hopes that he could break through the Russians using untested tanks that proved to be ineffective for the most part. They simply could not overcome the numbers the Russians were willing to throw at them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#2,312
#2,312
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok there was just a silly banner on Fox News just now.

“Germany not sending weapons, troops to Europe”

C’mon guys at least throw a full cheek at it and make a half assed effort.
Click to expand...

Besides their lack of geography knowledge, if Germany sits this one out then NATO is useless as is already pretty evident. Let Europe fix their own problems
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
#2,313
#2,313
Germany seems to have a short memory. Or maybe they just like the feel of Russian boots on their necks.

giphy.gifUnknown.jpegUnknown-1.jpeg
 
#2,315
#2,315
landscapingvol said:
That is partially true, the battle of Kursk occurred in an area where the Russians had already fought them to a stalemate and Hitler could not afford the losses he was going to endure materially at Kursk. It was very similar to the Battle of the Bulge in that the outcome by that point in the war was inevitable, those battles just delayed the outcome in the short term but sped it up in the long term. After the Battle of Kursk, the German military was pushed back rapidly. Germany lost the initiative after Stalingrad, Kursk was just an idiotic gamble by Hitler in the hopes that he could break through the Russians using untested tanks that proved to be ineffective for the most part. They simply could not overcome the numbers the Russians were willing to throw at them
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Germany only lost Army Group South at Stalingrad, Army Group Center and North were still in full form. The way that I see it was that Stalingrad stopped the German offensive but Kursk started the Russian offensive. They were pretty stalemated in the time between. Don't downplay the importance of Kursk, it still is the largest land battle in human history.
 
#2,316
#2,316
Pretty much sums up how Ukraine's defense would probably go initially...

adfadf.png

But, occupying the Ukraine would be another story...

image (1).jpg
 
Last edited:
#2,317
#2,317
volbound1700 said:
Keep in mind that Germany only lost Army Group South at Stalingrad, Army Group Center and North were still in full form. The way that I see it was that Stalingrad stopped the German offensive but Kursk started the Russian offensive. They were pretty stalemated in the time between. Don't downplay the importance of Kursk, it still is the largest land battle in human history.
Click to expand...
When you start losing armies you know you are in a tussle. Absolutely savage
 
#2,318
#2,318
volbound1700 said:
Keep in mind that Germany only lost Army Group South at Stalingrad, Army Group Center and North were still in full form. The way that I see it was that Stalingrad stopped the German offensive but Kursk started the Russian offensive. They were pretty stalemated in the time between. Don't downplay the importance of Kursk, it still is the largest land battle in human history.
Click to expand...

I am not downplaying it but it was a disaster for Germany in material and was unnecessary. Not to mention, they fell into a trap laid by the Russians.
 
#2,321
#2,321
#2,324
#2,324
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top