The amount of Soviet Spuads
quote:
Originally posted by NEON DEON:
There was a Mustang that was used for ground attack. It was designated the A36 and does not appear in the numbers I used previously.
Ed’s REPLY:
Wrong. All Mustangs in Europe did close-in dirty work. They often broke off after escorting bombers, and went to the deck looking for targets of opportunity.
REPLY:
I am wrong Ed? You just took me out of context. If you would do me one small favor when quoting, Use the whole paragraph..
Here is the full quote that you should of used instead of the chopped up one you did use…
NEONS FULL QUOTE:
There was a Mustang that was used for ground attack. It was designated the A36 and does not appear in the numbers I used previously. These Planes served mainly in Italy and were
Powered by a non supercharged Allison engine unlike the P51B thru Ks. These were the only Mustangs to suffer any significant amount of casualties during the war. The P51s were used in ground attack on Dday, At the Battle of the Bulge and in 1945 when they were released from bomber escort to go after targets of Opportunity.
RE-REPLY:
Just to re-iterate: The primary role of the P51 in the ETO was bomber escort not ground attack.
During 1943/44 the US flew over 390,000 combat sorties by fighter of which only 20% were ground attack. And, of all the ground attack sorties flown in 44/45, 30% of them came in just 2 months. JUNE 44 & DEC 44. In 1945, US fighters flew over 176,000 combat sorties of which 49% were ground attack. JUST AS I SAID THEY WERE IN THE ABOVE UNABRIDGED QUOTE!
SOURCE: US Army Air Force Statistical Digest of WWII as kept by the Air Force at Maxwell AFB.
LINK: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/
NEON’S PARTIAL QUOTE:
quote:
I totally missed the boat on this one (pun intended).) Every Navy fighter including the Brewster Buffalo had a range of 850+ miles.
ED’S REPLY:
For heavens's sake they couldn't even fly from the West Coast to Hawaii. They either got on a carrier or were packed up and taken by cargo ships. Secondly, there wasn't the worldwide network of airbases that we have now, never mind midair refueling.
Besides, why bother arguing about this? You're the one saying the Allies would have air superiority in a week. Pacific-based aircraft couldn't get there and make ready for combat in time to participate in the slaughter you proclaim would occur.
REPLY:
Well, once again out of context! Here is the whole quote in case u missed it.
NEON’S FULL QUOTE:
REPLY:
I totally missed the boat on this one (pun intended).)
Every Navy fighter including the Brewster Buffalo had a range of 850+ miles. And, the Baltic and Black seas were not ponds nor did the US Navy have to re-deploy in order to attack Vladivostock. But, no matter lets just chuck the Navy and leave 1/3 of all Army fighters in the Pacific to defend against balloon bombs.) The Air weapon the US wants from the pacific is not a fighter anyways it’s the B29. And it wont take 2 weeks to re-deploy a long range strategic bomber.
RE-REPLY:
Ed did you miss the part about chucking the whole US NAVY & 1/3 OF ALL ARMY FIGHTERS?
And, as for airbases. The USAAF had over 1600 airfields located all over the world in May of 45. 723 in USA. 66 in North America. 32 in South America. 130 in US possessions. 57 in the Pacific Islands. 7 in Austrailia. 21 on Atlantic islands. 31 in Africa. 175 in Asia. And 392 in Europe.
SOURCE: US Army Air Force Statistical Digest of WWII as kept by the Air Force at Maxwell AFB.
LINK: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/
I don’t think I ever mentioned that Navy planes would abandon their carriers. Why on earth would they do that?
QUOTE:
The British told Churchill it wouldn't work, and here you go right back to throwing your "adjusted" production and performance numbers at me. That the Allies had better stats for their fighters doesn't logically lead to them being able to sweep the skies of Europe of Soviet planes all in a week, considering how outnumbered they were.
Can you at least admit to the possibility of the air war lasting more than a week?
REPLY:
NOPE.
OPERATION UNTHINKABLE ASSESSMENT:
QUOTE:
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.'' http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm
The rest of the document can be found at the above link.
Read the above quote and tell me where it doesn’t say the allies have a more mobile army and that they expect to have air superiority. Now that’s just one quote of many in that article. That’s why I included the link. When you read it be careful separating the actual quotes from the document Which appear to all be in “ “ as opposed to the news paper reporters editorializing.
May 1, 1945
US COMBAT PLANES DEPLOYED BY THE USAAF 43,248
All Bombers 23,514
Fighters 19,734
USAAF COMBAT PLANES DEPLOYED USA 18,868
ALL BOMBERS 11,614
Fighters 7,254
US COMBAT PLANES DEPLOYED EUROPE 14,845
ALL BOMBERS 8,072
FIGHTERS 6,773
US COMBAT PLANES DEPLOYED PAC/ASIA/ALASKA 9,535
ALL BOMBERS 3,828
ALL FIGHTERS 5,707
SOURCE: US Army Air Force Statistical Digest of WWII as kept by the Air Force at Maxwell AFB.
LINK: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/
Every combat aircraft in PAC/ASIA/ALASKA could get swallowed up by a typhoon, The entire Pacific Carrier fleet could sink, The R.A.F. could fall from the skies, and the USAAF would still be the largest Air Force in the world .
AIR SUPERIORITY IN ONE WEEK.
Didn't the Germans say something similar about Barbarossa, "three months, at best"? Learn from history, lest you repeat it.Originally posted by NEON DEON:
AIR SUPERIORITY IN ONE WEEK.
------------------
Best regards,
Greg Leon Guerrero
[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited February 24, 2001).]
Best regards,
Greg Guerrero
Greg Guerrero
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
-
Optha
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Delmenhorst,Niedersachsen,Germany
- Contact:
Its boring to discuss about a air superioty in one week, while the allies need over a year to crush the Luftwaffe. On the other side, US lost about 250.000 Soldiers in WWII. How much would die in a WWIII starting in 45?
The overall US-tactic depend on "Let the warmachines fight and avoid losses" The russians dont care about losses ( as the germans).
I guess, US-goverment dont want to pay the price for a victory against the soviets.
The overall US-tactic depend on "Let the warmachines fight and avoid losses" The russians dont care about losses ( as the germans).
I guess, US-goverment dont want to pay the price for a victory against the soviets.
I can think of two 'what-ifs' in response to this one, and I'm sure you could follow up with a few more. It might be best to agree to disagree, at this pointOriginally posted by NEON DEON:
AHH Barbarella um no Barbarossa. Too bad the
Germans had to help their buddy Mussilini out in Greece earlier that year or Barbarossa
coulda started out a month earlier. Now what
thread that could make!
------------------
Best regards,
Greg Leon Guerrero
Best regards,
Greg Guerrero
Greg Guerrero
To start off the Tread...why did you use the qualifying phrase, "Too bad the Germans had to help..."? Are you somehow implying that it is "Too bad" that the Russians won the war? Would the world be a better place today? Of course given an extra month of good weather the Wehrmacht would have probably achieved its military goal of advancing to the Archangael-Astrakhan line...what do you think this would have meant in terms of the Western allies subsequent ability to defeat Germany? If in 1941-42 the whole Eastern Front had collapsed the result would have been disasterous for the Western Allies...the Germans incurred 80% of their losses fighting the Russians...Originally posted by NEON DEON:
AHH Barbarella um no Barbarossa. Too bad the Germans had to help their buddy Mussilini out in Greece earlier that year or Barbarossa coulda started out a month earlier. Now what
thread that could make!
Just think of what several extra years of domination by the Ostministrie would have meant for the Slav untermenchen in the Ukraine and elsewhere in Russia; what kind of prolific work the Sonderkommandos could have accomplished...not to mention how much more final the Final Solution would have been for millions more nonaryan human beings...and while atrocities are being debated from the warmth of our computer rooms, consider what would you have done with a captured German flammenwefer engineer, who had let's imagine for arguments sake, just burned down a barn full of civilians or partisans somewhere in Oklahoma or Iowa...let's not forget that Germany ignored the rules of "civilized" warfare in Russia, using as excuse the fact that the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention...
As for the emotional diatribe, my father was a second lieutenant in the 65th Infantry, and I have a wonderful picture of him arm in arm with a Russian lieutenant in May 1945 on a bridge near Vienna...he got there by fighting from Le Harvre to Alsace-Lorraine and then onward...if "Barbarossa coulda started out a month earlier"...he and that Russian would probably be dead, and many of us middle-aged Westerners would just be a twinkle in our widowed mothers eye...
Cheers
Ok NEON DEON, you asked for it here it is:
``The overall political or political object is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire....
``Even though `the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment.
``A quick success might induce the Russians to submit to our will at least for the time being; but it might not.
``That is for the Russians to decide. If they want total war, they are in a position to have it....
``To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilisation of manpower to counteract their present enormous manpower resources.
``This is a very long-term project and would involve: a) the deployment in Europe of a large proportion of the vast resources of the United States. b) the re-equipment and re-organisation of German manpower and of all the Western European Allies.''
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.'' Churchill's team considered that Russian retaliation could include attempts to take over Norway, Turkey, Greece, and the oil fields in Persia and Iraq. Thus, they argued: ``If we are to embark on war with Russia, we must be prepared to be committed to a total war, which would be both long and costly.'' They added: ``Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful whether we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object.''
``It is clear from the relative strength of the respective land forces that we are not in a position to take the offensive with a view to achieving a rapid success.
``Since, however, Russian and allied land forces are in contact from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we are bound to become involved in land operations. In support of our land forces we should have technically superior, but numerically inferior, tactical air forces.
``As regards Strategic Air Forces, our superiority in numbers and technique would be to some extent discounted by the absence of strategical targets compared to those which existed in Germany, and the necessity for using these strategic air forces to supplement our tactical air forces in support of land operations.
``Our views, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds.
``These odds, moreover, would become fanciful if the Americans grew weary and indifferent and began to be drawn away by the magnet of the Pacific War.''
Where does it say that the West would gain air superiority or that they have a more mobile army? Where does it say that the West would win either a short war or a long war?
But you never let the facts get in the way of your opinions now do you?
``The overall political or political object is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire....
``Even though `the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment.
``A quick success might induce the Russians to submit to our will at least for the time being; but it might not.
``That is for the Russians to decide. If they want total war, they are in a position to have it....
``To achieve the decisive defeat of Russia in a total war would require, in particular, the mobilisation of manpower to counteract their present enormous manpower resources.
``This is a very long-term project and would involve: a) the deployment in Europe of a large proportion of the vast resources of the United States. b) the re-equipment and re-organisation of German manpower and of all the Western European Allies.''
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.'' Churchill's team considered that Russian retaliation could include attempts to take over Norway, Turkey, Greece, and the oil fields in Persia and Iraq. Thus, they argued: ``If we are to embark on war with Russia, we must be prepared to be committed to a total war, which would be both long and costly.'' They added: ``Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful whether we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object.''
``It is clear from the relative strength of the respective land forces that we are not in a position to take the offensive with a view to achieving a rapid success.
``Since, however, Russian and allied land forces are in contact from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we are bound to become involved in land operations. In support of our land forces we should have technically superior, but numerically inferior, tactical air forces.
``As regards Strategic Air Forces, our superiority in numbers and technique would be to some extent discounted by the absence of strategical targets compared to those which existed in Germany, and the necessity for using these strategic air forces to supplement our tactical air forces in support of land operations.
``Our views, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds.
``These odds, moreover, would become fanciful if the Americans grew weary and indifferent and began to be drawn away by the magnet of the Pacific War.''
Where does it say that the West would gain air superiority or that they have a more mobile army? Where does it say that the West would win either a short war or a long war?
But you never let the facts get in the way of your opinions now do you?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin
Marquo,
Just wondering if you knew what happened to all those people under Stalinist Russia? The same thing only prolly worse. Not to mention the Poles Jews and POWs. When we bring in the evil aspect of the discussion I think we would be hard pressed to find which is worse Nazi or Stalinism. But in my opinion Stalin was a bit worse on the death camps, he had his own in Siberia. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened next if Russia would have lost, perhaps Germans in the Pacific war or Middle East battle field. The alliance with Russia was simply an Enemy of my Enemy is an Ally of mine. If Stalin did not die in 1953 we would have most likely had WWIII in 1954 or 55. Of course I despise both Communism and Fascism they both are evil forms of authoritarian government. Stalin was the epicenter of an Evil that stills scars the world, mostly Russia and East Europe.
Just wondering if you knew what happened to all those people under Stalinist Russia? The same thing only prolly worse. Not to mention the Poles Jews and POWs. When we bring in the evil aspect of the discussion I think we would be hard pressed to find which is worse Nazi or Stalinism. But in my opinion Stalin was a bit worse on the death camps, he had his own in Siberia. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened next if Russia would have lost, perhaps Germans in the Pacific war or Middle East battle field. The alliance with Russia was simply an Enemy of my Enemy is an Ally of mine. If Stalin did not die in 1953 we would have most likely had WWIII in 1954 or 55. Of course I despise both Communism and Fascism they both are evil forms of authoritarian government. Stalin was the epicenter of an Evil that stills scars the world, mostly Russia and East Europe.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." <br />-Adolf Hitler
MONI KERR
QUOTE:
Where does it say that the West would gain air superiority or that they have a more mobile army? Where does it say that the West would win either a short war or a long war?
But you never let the facts get in the way of your opinions now do you?
-------------------------------------------
REPLY:
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.''
Moni what part of the words Superior handling & air superiority in the above quote don’t you understand??
Where does it say they lose?
The operation called for a limited war not total war.
IP
The report does not say that air superiority or superior manuverability is going to be achieved. Furthermore it states clearly that even if both are achieved victory is not assured, that's why they use the phrase 'might enable' instead of 'would enable'. And since achieving both of those is required to possibly win a quick victory the conclusion of the report,
``Our views, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds.
makes clear that the authors do not believe that a quick victory is possible. Notice how they say 'it would be beyond our power to win' and do not say 'it might be within our power to win'. That means that they do not belive that they can deliver the conditions for a victory. In other words they cannot deliver either 'air superiority' or 'superior manuverability'.
``Our views, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds.
makes clear that the authors do not believe that a quick victory is possible. Notice how they say 'it would be beyond our power to win' and do not say 'it might be within our power to win'. That means that they do not belive that they can deliver the conditions for a victory. In other words they cannot deliver either 'air superiority' or 'superior manuverability'.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin
Yes TS it is not an easy read at all.
Moni,
You still dont get it. The operation called for a limited war. NOT TOTAL WAR.
and, it says air superiority and superior mobility. I still dont see what is so hard to interpret from that part, unless of course english is not your native tounge. Then, I could see how you might mis-interpret that part. The sentence doesnt say that they might have (superior handling and air superiority). It says that it might allow them to win.
I agree with TS it sounds like a politician wrote it.
Quote from fictional General after loss.
"Wait a minute guys i said we might win."
Quote from same General if he had won.
"see guys i told ya we would win"
Moni,
You still dont get it. The operation called for a limited war. NOT TOTAL WAR.
and, it says air superiority and superior mobility. I still dont see what is so hard to interpret from that part, unless of course english is not your native tounge. Then, I could see how you might mis-interpret that part. The sentence doesnt say that they might have (superior handling and air superiority). It says that it might allow them to win.
I agree with TS it sounds like a politician wrote it.
Quote from fictional General after loss.
"Wait a minute guys i said we might win."
Quote from same General if he had won.
"see guys i told ya we would win"
Actually it's a simple read. Comprehension is obviously not one of your stronger traits.
And I'm still waiting for you to point out all the contradictions you claim are in there.
[This message has been edited by moni kerr (edited February 24, 2001).]
And I'm still waiting for you to point out all the contradictions you claim are in there.
[This message has been edited by moni kerr (edited February 24, 2001).]
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin
Actually it's a simple read. Comprehension is obviously not one of your stronger traits.
And I'm still waiting for you to point out all the contradictions you claim are in there.
-------------------------------------------
``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.
-------------------------------------------
Moni,
Still can't read?
P.S.
Comprehension of reality obviously escapes you.
[This message has been edited by NEON DEON (edited February 25, 2001).]
And I'm still waiting for you to point out all the contradictions you claim are in there.
-------------------------------------------
``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.
-------------------------------------------
Moni,
Still can't read?
P.S.
Comprehension of reality obviously escapes you.
[This message has been edited by NEON DEON (edited February 25, 2001).]
OPTHA
QUOTE:
Its boring to discuss about a air superioty in one week, while the allies need over a year to crush the Luftwaffe. On the other side, US lost about 250.000 Soldiers in WWII. How much would die in a WWIII starting in 45?
The overall US-tactic depend on "Let the warmachines fight and avoid losses" The russians dont care about losses ( as the germans).
I guess, US-goverment dont want to pay the price for a victory against the soviets
--------------------------------------------
REPLY:
This is what Rommel and Ruge thought about allied air power. During the Dday campaign.
---------------------------------------------
Field Marshal Rommel's reaction to being pinned to the ground by Allied tactical air was a repetition of the feelings he had expressed during the dark days of 1942, when scourged by the Desert Air Force. Already by June 9, Admiral Ruge was writing that "the air superiority of the enemy is having the effect the Field Marshal had expected and predicted: our movements are extremely slow." The next day, Rommel wrote to his wife: "The enemy's air superiority has a very grave effect on our movements. There's simply no answer to it." In walks with Ruge, Rommel continued to complain about the invasion situation, "especially the lack of air support." Ruge concluded that "utilization of the Anglo-American air force is the modern type of warfare, turning the flank not from the side but from above." The situation turned increasingly bleak. By July 6, during a dinner party, a "colonel of a propaganda battalion" remarked that soldiers were constantly asking "Where is the Luftwaffe?" In staff discussions about the future as if one really existed for the Third Reich-Rommel and Ruge concurred that "the tactical Luftwaffe has to be an organic part of the army, otherwise one cannot operate," which showed how little the two men understood the evolution of Allied air power over the previous three years of the war. It was precisely because Allied air power was not subordinate to the armies that it was free to use mass and concentration to achieve its most productive ends-and thereby help the Allied armies the most.
-------------------------------------------
Optha,
The only place the Germans had air superiority was in the skies over Berlin. Out of range
From USAAF fighters. That ended Shortly after the P51 showed up in numbers in late 1943.
As far as losses are concerned. The USSR & Germany lost millions of men by 1945. The US
Lost less than 2% of her population. Being a westerner and an American I have to agree
With you about the US wanting to take losses. ABSOLUTLEY! Just look at the way the
US fights. We would rather go around then thru and we never go anywhere without
our airpower including the Ocean. The US had over 30 aircraft carriers
in 1945. But, I think your missing the Boat about us softies. Japan attacked Pearl
Harbor thinking if they destroyed the US Pacific Fleet the so called “weak decadant
Americans" would sue for peace. Then the Germans Declared war on the US too!
Both those countries assumed America wouldn’t fight. Boy did they make a mistake!
.
-
Ancient One
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
tsbond,
Enough soviet bashing - after all they saved the world back in '45.
Surely your not saying the Soviet Union was any more neurotic than the good ole' US of A -
with its program of state assasination of non-sympathetic leaders in other countries (soon to be revived)
its intervention and support of the worst sort of dictators responsible for torture and deaths in Guatamala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Franco's Spain , Hirohito's not such a bad guy after all, etc
with its history of wars/intervention/broken treaties purely for for economic aggrandisement - er I mean, to protect/enhance the liberties of others - Where would you start? (phillipenes, indians, south america?) And why is Saddam still in power anyway? and whatever happened to those poor kurds who supported the US - poisoned to a kurd, the suckers.
and ruthless use of military/economic muscle to loot resources/stay on top (those lazy africans are soo third world - why can't they pick themselves up!)
with its ritual persecution of "un-american" americans
with prison camps holding 1 million (or is it 2 million?) of its citizens
a phenomenally expensive, wasteful, anti-missile program (as if terrorists are going to fire missiles!)
while (how many?) maybe 25% of the populatiion under the poverty/malnutrition/ line - "freedom to starve" - off to the camps for you boy! (now there's a problem you didn'y get in commie land, education, food & health for everyone)
its attempt to starve the United Nations Organisation into submission by witholding dues (but its willingness to cite that organisation as a pretext for bombing irag)
and of course the recent farce where the candidate with 47% of the vote (with 50? million abstentions!) and the support of key government officials was "elected" because there was "no time" to actually count the votes.
(and whilst thinking about it the US has a similar history of bungling as the USSR - backfires in Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, Cambodia, Iran, Sudan...)
wow, its amazing how much anti-usa propaganda you pick up when you don't live in tom clancy's capitalist paradise - must all be commie disinformation we get in nether regions of the world.
Enough soviet bashing - after all they saved the world back in '45.
Surely your not saying the Soviet Union was any more neurotic than the good ole' US of A -
with its program of state assasination of non-sympathetic leaders in other countries (soon to be revived)
its intervention and support of the worst sort of dictators responsible for torture and deaths in Guatamala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Franco's Spain , Hirohito's not such a bad guy after all, etc
with its history of wars/intervention/broken treaties purely for for economic aggrandisement - er I mean, to protect/enhance the liberties of others - Where would you start? (phillipenes, indians, south america?) And why is Saddam still in power anyway? and whatever happened to those poor kurds who supported the US - poisoned to a kurd, the suckers.
and ruthless use of military/economic muscle to loot resources/stay on top (those lazy africans are soo third world - why can't they pick themselves up!)
with its ritual persecution of "un-american" americans
with prison camps holding 1 million (or is it 2 million?) of its citizens
a phenomenally expensive, wasteful, anti-missile program (as if terrorists are going to fire missiles!)
while (how many?) maybe 25% of the populatiion under the poverty/malnutrition/ line - "freedom to starve" - off to the camps for you boy! (now there's a problem you didn'y get in commie land, education, food & health for everyone)
its attempt to starve the United Nations Organisation into submission by witholding dues (but its willingness to cite that organisation as a pretext for bombing irag)
and of course the recent farce where the candidate with 47% of the vote (with 50? million abstentions!) and the support of key government officials was "elected" because there was "no time" to actually count the votes.
(and whilst thinking about it the US has a similar history of bungling as the USSR - backfires in Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, Cambodia, Iran, Sudan...)
wow, its amazing how much anti-usa propaganda you pick up when you don't live in tom clancy's capitalist paradise - must all be commie disinformation we get in nether regions of the world.
-
Optha
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Delmenhorst,Niedersachsen,Germany
- Contact:
NEON DEON,
you talk about a air superiority in mid 44. US enters the war in late 41. As i said, over a year aircombat occurs before. Other aspects: The Luftwaffe never reached have the number of airplanes in russian service. Without oilimports from russia, even the Luftwaffe have a shortage of fuel. The Germnas have had a very large front, which breaks up the airforce in small pieces.
No compare with the russian situation in mid 45.
"Berlin", nice hint. Take a look on the first 9 month of daylight airraids against germany. Why could the allies use more bombers and fighters as they can produce in a month? Gain airsuperioity is a slow progress unless you can destroy the a/c on the ground in the first strike. A week is a dream until you have target-seeking-air-to-air-rockets
US-Tactics:
Moving will be even risky for the allies until they reech airsuperioity.
Even a local operation needs a breaktrough. This will include a infantry attack to soften up the soviet defence. A fast frontal assault with high losses. After the breaktrough, the allied airforce would bomb the counterattack to powerless manuever.
Without deep operations behind the frontline any progress will be slow. Deep operations against the soviets in 45 surly will end in a desaster. Dont compare them with 41.
And at lest: Bad weather and winter
"US wouldnt fight"
Hitler declared war on US, without a comment to his staff. No one really know why he did it. Historicans belive, he want to face UN-soldiers in US-uniforms, not only the US-landleasematerial.
PS: No one in OKW knows, how to invade the USA.
Allover, the generals in OKW belive, that americans couldnt fight well. This wasnt a mistake in the beginning. On the other side the US-forces learnd fast.
you talk about a air superiority in mid 44. US enters the war in late 41. As i said, over a year aircombat occurs before. Other aspects: The Luftwaffe never reached have the number of airplanes in russian service. Without oilimports from russia, even the Luftwaffe have a shortage of fuel. The Germnas have had a very large front, which breaks up the airforce in small pieces.
No compare with the russian situation in mid 45.
"Berlin", nice hint. Take a look on the first 9 month of daylight airraids against germany. Why could the allies use more bombers and fighters as they can produce in a month? Gain airsuperioity is a slow progress unless you can destroy the a/c on the ground in the first strike. A week is a dream until you have target-seeking-air-to-air-rockets
US-Tactics:
Moving will be even risky for the allies until they reech airsuperioity.
Even a local operation needs a breaktrough. This will include a infantry attack to soften up the soviet defence. A fast frontal assault with high losses. After the breaktrough, the allied airforce would bomb the counterattack to powerless manuever.
Without deep operations behind the frontline any progress will be slow. Deep operations against the soviets in 45 surly will end in a desaster. Dont compare them with 41.
And at lest: Bad weather and winter
"US wouldnt fight"
Hitler declared war on US, without a comment to his staff. No one really know why he did it. Historicans belive, he want to face UN-soldiers in US-uniforms, not only the US-landleasematerial.
PS: No one in OKW knows, how to invade the USA.
Allover, the generals in OKW belive, that americans couldnt fight well. This wasnt a mistake in the beginning. On the other side the US-forces learnd fast.