Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
I will Die for Russia!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if war would broke out, im sure you would...


Do you think its easy when your country gets devided? Imagine if in 1991 USA broke up into 50 countries?



Your country gets divided? YOUR COUNTRY? Those bits and pieces were INVADED territories thank you very much, sure, i can imagine USA breaking up IF different states had different history (drastically different) and a different language - very different a whole other group actually......!
That is the SILLIEST Example ever, sorry, but its just utter bull# that I can't stand.




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
The Red Army was far from glorious, they raped and pillaged their way half way across Europe, just the Nazi's actions in Russia reversed. Remember the 3 days at Demmin, the Red Army acted like the wild monkeys they were.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Since there are a lot of topics to counter claim and sine I don’t have much time I ll replying to all/most of your claims your in one post

Claim 1 Soviets wont have won without US Aid
Claim 2 WW2 wasn’t only a Russian achievement but a combined achievement


WW2 was my topic and I have read views of 10 historians regarding the great patriotic war 2 of them were communist 3 liberal 3 capitalist and the rest had their own views …all of them differed in opinion but not a single did support your opinion ie “”””””Soviets wont have won without US Aid”””””””””

Following are my arguments against your claim

1 Soviet Union Won not only due to US aid but mainly due to the reforms that were bought in the army: a war technology was improved and updated
B Operation Uranus was initiated
C giving full powers to the brilliant General Gorgi Zhukhov and loosening party control in the army

2 The US that USSR received was mainly Food and Raw material….not prepared goods …
3 These aids were given as “Lend-Lease aid” USSR returned them with full interest …
4 the Trucks that ur speaking of was given to soviet union during the End stages of the war (1945) when the USSR has already defeated Germany and was approaching towards Berlin ….so they played no role as far as protecting our country was involved

Needless to say that the WW2 wasn’t won by a single party be it the British or the US or The USSR each of them helped the other in various way …but ur claims like USSR wont have been to do it without US aid contradicts the view of most historians
To quote Prof Richard Overy

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labor from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.
The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.





…….US and the Brits helped us so did we …….If you say without US help soviets have lost …then I ll say if the Soviets haven’t retaliated the then the Germans would have easily defeated the Brits and with the help of the Japs would have fu..ed the yanks

I agree that US aid helped us a lot but it wasn’t the main reason for our success ….. the main reason for which we won was the reforms that were introduced in the Red Army and the Soviet Industry after 1942

Moreover Stalin Himself thanked the US officially for their help.



With this I ll like to quote few lines by Prof Richard Overy :



Introduction
In his prison cell at Nuremberg, Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, wrote a brief memoir in the course of which he explored the reasons for Germany's defeat.
He picked out three factors that he thought were critical:
the unexpected 'power of resistance' of the Red Army; the vast supply of American armaments; and the success of Allied air power.
This last was Hitler's explanation too.

………………………………………………………….


Yet within a year Soviet factories were out-producing their richly-endowed German counterparts - the Red Army had embarked on a thorough transformation of the technical and organizational base of Soviet forces, and a stiffening of morale, from Stalin downwards, produced the first serious reverse for the German armed forces when Operation Uranus in November 1942 led to the encirclement of Stalingrad and the loss of the German Sixth Army.

The transformation in Soviet fighting power and morale has a number of explanations.

In the first place the Red Army learned a great deal from German practice and from their own mistakes.

The air and tank armies were reorganized to mimic the German Panzer divisions and air fleets; communication and intelligence were vastly improved (helped by a huge supply of American and British telephone equipment and cable); training for officers and men was designed to encourage greater initiative; and the technology available was hastily modernised to match German.

Two other changes proved vital . First, Soviet industry and workforce proved remarkable adaptable for a command economy long regarded as inherently inefficient and inflexible.
pre-war experience of economic planning and mobilisation helped the regime to run a war economy on an emergency basis, while the vast exodus of workers (an estimated 16 million) and factories (more than 2,500 major plants) from in front of the advancing Germans allowed the USSR to reconstruct its armaments economy in central and eastern Russia with great rapidity


The southern attack failed at Stalingrad. After weeks of chaotic retreats and easy German victories, the Red Army solidified its defense and against all the odds clung on to the battered city. In November 1942 Operation Uranus was launched by the Soviets, and the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad was encircled.
Some historians have seen this as the turning point of the war. But not until the Red Army had decisively defeated German forces in the more favourable summer weather of 1943 did the tide really turn.
The Battle of Kursk in July 1943 was one of the greatest set-piece battles in military history. The Red Army withstood a massive German assault, and then counter-attacked. For two years Soviet forces pushed the German army back into Germany, until in May 1945 Soviet forces accepted the surrender of the relic of Hitler's army in Berlin.
The second factor lay with politics. Until the summer of 1942 Stalin and the Party closely controlled the Red Army. Political commissars worked directly alongside senior officers and reported straight back to the Kremlin. Stalin came to realise that political control was a dead hand on the army and cut it back sharply in the autumn of 1942.



[edit on 23-6-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

He created a deputy supreme commander under him, the talented Marshal Zhukov, and began to step back more from the day-to- day conduct of the war. Given the freedom to work out their own salvation, the Soviet General Staff demonstrated that they could match the Germans on the battlefield. Not until the later stages of the war did Stalin begin to reimpose control, when victory was at last in sight.

Turnaround
The central question of the German-Soviet war is why, after two years of defeats, and the loss of more than five million men and two-thirds of the industrial capacity of the country, the Red Army was able to blunt, then drive back, the German attack.

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts.



Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.

Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.


Links


How the allies won ?

The Soviet-German War 1941 - 1945



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
PRELUDE :


…….US and the Brits helped us so did we …….If you say without US help soviets have lost …then I ll say if the Soviets haven’t retaliated the then the Germans would have easily defeated the Brits and with the help of the Japs would have fu..ed the yanks


that sir is pure fantasy ..... and that is my polite answer

the BoB and africa had already turned the war in brittish favour -- the germans for all thier divisions could NOT invade brittain after october 1940

and as for your statement " soviets retaliated " ... that makes zero sense -- they had been invaded , what were they going to do , capitulate ??

what ever state of war or peace exosted betwen germany and the soviet union -- the eastern front would for ever be a sink hole which swallowed nazi men and materials

do you honestly believe that hitler could EVER leave the eastern front undefended -- no matter what treaty he had with stalin

before answering -- please consider why 300k troops were kept in norway right up to wars end

as for alliance with japan to deteat the US -- roflmao

how exactly -- the nazis were NEVER in a position to threten the CONUS directly -- nor was japan .

the US could not have been stopped from producing the A-bomb by any combination of axis forces -- and there was [ despite claims to the contary ] no credible nuclear progra in any axis nation

the US would by 1946 have been able to roll back any power in the worls -- one mushroom cloud at a time


bottom line is that hitlers " generalship " < sic > and dogmatic nazi policies was one of the biggest aids to the allied war effort in Europe

hitlers generalship -- needs little explination -- the botched direction of attacks , back tracking and failing to take the caucuses , moscow or destroy the soviet army in the correct order or timely fashion

nazi policy -- that was the most blatant exaple of shooting themselves in the foot was thier labeling ukrainians as " untermenchen "

instead they created a vast unpolicable tract that spawned partisans , and remained a hostile rear area -- where the Nazis could never feel safe -- and sucked up troops that were needed at the fronts

when they could have had a vassal state who would have semi freely provided food , raw materials and troops
.

APE OUT



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Prelude, with statements like these:


As for others who are educated : the GLORY THAT THE RED ARMY INHERITS IS HIGHER THAN ANY (i repeat ANY) ARMY in this world.......
[...]
The Red Army deserves the glory of saving the humanity from Nazism..and that glory is more than enough to cover all these half-educated propagandas by the Western Media (Hungary, Baltics, Beslan and Chechnia )


...you should expect to catch some Flak. But instead of argueing against that, you brush off all counterarguments preemptively by declaring everyone who doesnt think in your lines as influenced by the "western media". Funnily enough you put your own statements into perspective with your later posts, though I don´t think that was intentional.

The one thing that NOONE can go around is this: regardless of what was accomplished where, when and by whom in the 2nd World War, it could only work with the pressure from and cooperation of ALL sides of the Allies in that war. Further argumentation is unnecessary.





Originally posted by Russian soldier
I will Die for Russia!!!!!!!!!!! I am not afraid of death, but rather dying before I accomplish my task. My task is to defend Russia! I don't care how tough any country is, but I will fight to the death.


Relevance?


... I am sad that only 2 people have said in favor of Russia in this thread besides me. For me Russia always is and always was the greatest. Nothing anyone will say will change it.


Then why even discuss anything, if you aren´t willing to evaluate other people´s opinions?

And maybe the reason that one cannot lightheartedly speak in favor of the Russian Armed forces is that even with a budget increase, it will remain a shadow of its former self? A former self that was of course bought by straining the whole Soviet zone beyond bearable limits and that ultimately promoted the downfall of the Soviet Empire. The strength of the Red Army is gone forever, unless the Russians again want to prostitute themselves to sustain an insane Cold War that they cannot win under the current world economic situation.

One could also say that in order to become a coherent military again it would be a good decision for the Russian Armed forces to actually shrink to a sustainable size again. And to catch the turn to the original issue of the new weaponry again: introducing a set of new equipment alone doesnt accomplish what would be the necessary transition to bring the Russian forces up to a reasonable strebgth again: a size reduction while boosting Professionalism at the same time.

This is a transition that requires thorough remodelling of the Forces themselves, and cant be accomplished by shooting up some new satellites into space. Actually a higher grade of Professionalism is in the planning right now, lets see if and how it comes to fruition.

And lastly: In our times, there is gladly no more "Glory" to be received from the Strength of a military or military operations. We can be glad that we are living in these rather peaceful times (Peace = lack of major conflicts)

[edit on 23/6/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
Since there are a lot of topics to counter claim and sine I don’t have much time I ll replying to all/most of your claims your in one post

Claim 1 Soviets wont have won without US Aid
Claim 2 WW2 wasn’t only a Russian achievement but a combined achievement


WW2 was my topic and I have read views of 10 historians regarding the great patriotic war 2 of them were communist 3 liberal 3 capitalist and the rest had their own views …all of them differed in opinion but not a single did support your opinion ie “”””””Soviets wont have won without US Aid”””””””””

Following are my arguments against your claim

1 Soviet Union Won not only due to US aid but mainly due to the reforms that were bought in the army: a war technology was improved and updated
B Operation Uranus was initiated
C giving full powers to the brilliant General Gorgi Zhukhov and loosening party control in the army

LOL brilliant, hard not to lose when you hvae overwhelming force. The Germans still infilicted far heavier losses on Soviet forces even being outnumbered on a huge scale. No brilliance there.

2 The US that USSR received was mainly Food and Raw material….not prepared goods …

Completel bollocks, they supplied more than 2/3's of your truking fleet, allowing the Red Army to become mobile. Russian trucks were hopelss and had no cross country mobility. Also your rail network was bankrolled and supplied by the US. Without both of these the Germans would hvae cut you to pieces in manouver warfare, as they did in 41-2.


3 These aids were given as “Lend-Lease aid” USSR returned them with full interest …


LOL, the Soviets never paid back a dime - what planet are you living on. They could barely afford to feed their won people.


4 the Trucks that ur speaking of was given to soviet union during the End stages of the war (1945) when the USSR has already defeated Germany and was approaching towards Berlin ….so they played no role as far as protecting our country was involved


Once again cmpletely wrong, they were showing up in large numbers by 1943.


Needless to say that the WW2 wasn’t won by a single party be it the British or the US or The USSR each of them helped the other in various way …but ur claims like USSR wont have been to do it without US aid contradicts the view of most historians


Most ? HAHA, I can point ot many historians who say it was vital. Reading what 10 historians of dubious backgrounds write, isn't most



…….US and the Brits helped us so did we …….If you say without US help soviets have lost …then I ll say if the Soviets haven’t retaliated the then the Germans would have easily defeated the Brits and with the help of the Japs would have fu..ed the yanks


Once again you don't really knw what you're talking about. The Japanese had the war lost as soon as they bombed Pearl Harbour, thy could never cmpete against the US.

[quoteI agree that US aid helped us a lot but it wasn’t the main reason for our success ….. the main reason for which we won was the reforms that were introduced in the Red Army and the Soviet Industry after 1942

And, you found plenty more cannon fodder to thrw away. If the German could have matched your manpower, they wouldn't have been stopped at all. They would have steamrollered over teh pittiful Red Army.


Moreover Stalin Himself thanked the US officially for their help.


LOL, what else was he ging to say.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Over 4,000 Bell P39 Airacobras were sent to the USSR.
www.daveswarbirds.com...

Over 2,450 Bell P63 Kingcobras were expoted to the USSR
www.wpafb.af.mil...

US deliveries to USSR
The list below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from the beginning of it until September 30, 1945.

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

From en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 6/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
people, like i say, not all russians are as rude and childish as this one, please dont think all of us the same, thank you.

-Vladimir



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Lend Lease from World War Two
There remains considerable accounting dispute about the exact sums involved. Historians estimate that payments to the major recipients included about $14 to $20 billion to Britain; $9-10 billion to the Soviet Union; France, $3.5 billion; and China and India, $2.2 billion, for a total of $48 billion.

Reverse Lend Lease summed to $8 billion going to the US, mostly in the form of leases on British naval bases, and in-kind goods and services used by US forces in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. The moneys were not to be repaid, except for supplies overseas when Lend-Lease terminated.

In the UK House of Lords
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us. "

On May 3rd, 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
For me Russia is the greatest. Did someone say that Russia will NEVER be as strong as it was before? BS. I repeat-that is BS. But don't take my word for it. Lets just wait and see. I have strong faith in Russia, and nothing will change it.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venoaris
people, like i say, not all russians are as rude and childish as this one, please dont think all of us the same, thank you.

-Vladimir


Naw.. unfortunately some are quite subversive towards western greenbacks nowadays.

And another thing:

Whomsoever said that The USSR didn't own those satellite states it broke up into maybe right, but any country that is more than 3000 sq km has annexed some territory at some stage or the other. When a russian says that he greives the breakup of the Soviet ,it IS equivalent to the analogy applied to the US. Maybe not today, but maybe during the early 1800s or even the early 1950s when Macarthyism was rampant in the US.



Originally posted by ch1le
Your country gets divided? YOUR COUNTRY? Those bits and pieces were INVADED territories thank you very much, sure, i can imagine USA breaking up IF different states had different history (drastically different) and a different language - very different a whole other group actually......!
That is the SILLIEST Example ever, sorry, but its just utter bull# that I can't stand.


Well that's probably because you have a doggone capitalistic/'damn commies' view of the whole thing..


Different languages/different history/culture have very little to do with the guidelines for decidnig different countries. THAT's utter bull# etc.. etc..
Infact The soviet satellite states had more in common with each other and Russia than maybe any single state in India has in common with the other.

My my, with your logic India should be 20 different countries now!!
No!!.. but wait.. I forgot.. India's a democracy! So that makes it ok I guess?!
.

Ok enough digression, what is this topic actually about?

New weapons and all for Russia is great but you need to get those average flt hours per pilot up by a factor of 5 at least!

Same goes for the Navy and the Army.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The Russians took the brunt of the German Army of World War II. They lost 10.7 million soldiers and another 11 and a 1/2 million civilians. That is mind boggling and a true sacrifice.

The USA gave the USSR much needed supplies that helped their army greatly. The USA could have used these resources for there own benefit, but felt supplying the Russian army was smarter.

The USA was fighting two wars, and had to go over two oceans to get to the fight. (of course it is a nice buffer too.) The Russians only had to fight on one front. If the Soviets attacked into Manchuria earlier in the war, instead of August 1945, I wonder what would have been the result. But the Soviets were devoting almost everything to the fight with the Germans.

Marshall Zukov and Koniev were great Russian generals of World War II, and Stalin did make the right move to let the army tacticians do there jobs.

Hitler might of won the war in the East if he did a few things differently or even let his field marshalls have a more freedom on doctrine. Or even if the Winter of 1941 did not come so early, and stop the German army outside of Moscow. These are big ifs that are not what happened.

The Russians also had great tanks in WWII in my opinion.

I don't think the Russians won the war, but they took more than there share of causulties. Without each other as allies this war could have gone the other way really easily.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The winter did not win the Germans, the Russians did. Just a reminder.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   


If the German could have matched your manpower, they wouldn't have been stopped at all. They would have steamrollered over teh pittiful Red Army.


Again the myth of the invincible NAZI Ubermenschen rears its ugly head...

I don't think the Germans could have beaten Russia under any circumstances.
As it is, had Stalin not slaughtered the best of the Red Army's officer corps before the war even started, I don't think Barbarossa would have gotten very far at all. Unfortunately the man's paranoia (about everyone except Hitler, who he should have worried about instead) drove him to cripple his own army before a shot was even fired.

As for "if the Germans could have matched your manpower" - the point is meaningless... If Lichtenstein had been able to match German manpower, would they have taken over Europe?

The Germans were tough and motivated when the initial assault was launched. Not so much when they outran their logistics trail and died in droves in the Russian winter.

As far as their purportedly superior equipment, most of it was boutique machinery poorly suited to harsh frontline conditions. Weapons like the LA-5 fighter and T-34 tank were equal to or marginally superior to their German counterparts even on paper. When one factors in their serviceability and reliability under field conditions, their advantages becomes clearer. When one considers their simpler design, rapidity of manufacture, and use of readily available materials (the LA-5 series was made largely of plywood for example), their advantages become more obvious still.

NAZI delusions of racial grandeur also contributed to their failure. It's forgotten now, but in many parts of the Soviet Union, especially the Ukraine, the population was tired of the rule of Moscow, and initially were prepared to see the Germans as liberators. The brutality of the SS (the plan was to largely depopulate the Russian breadbasket and turn it over to German farmers, with the surviving natives as a slave labor force) put an end to that advantage very quickly. In the end they supplied the Soviets with an exceptionally powerful motivator: be victorious or be exterminated. It's no wonder the war ended with Berlin prostrate under the Soviet boot.

As for US aid, it certainly was a great help to the Russians. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it made the difference between victory and defeat for them. The fact is that the Soviet Union was simply too big a meal for the German Reich to absorb. The Russians were able to move the bulk of their war production over the Urals and out of German reach, and after that it was defeat after defeat for the vaunted German war machine.

Given the parties involved, I really don't think WW2 could have gone any other way than it did. The Axis countries had stunning initial successes against their unprepared foes, but exceeded their own reach, driven by fanatical militaristic ideologies that made them overconfident and blind to their own weaknesses - not to mention unable to properly exploit their conquered territory. A couple brief years of glory and conquest, followed by long grinding retreats to their own pulverized doorsteps. That is the legacy of fascism.



[edit on 6/24/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
The winter did not win the Germans, the Russians did. Just a reminder.


then why is " general winter " cited as a key factor in the reversal of furtues of NAZI invasion of the soviet union , by EVERY cridible histrorian who comments on the matter -- inlcluding soviet official records , and later russian scholarship ??

without the winter and the mud -- the soviets would not have prevailed in the early months of 1942

no disrespect to the siberian divisions [ who made the first sucessfull counter attacks ] -- but they were not elite troops -- by any stretch of the imagination

but thier strengh was they could fight at near 100% efficiency in the russian winter

the nazis could not - thus suffered defeats

if the siberians had faced the nazis in august 1941 -- they would have been swept aside

APE OUT



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   


posted by xmotex

Critics say, “If the Germans could have matched Soviet manpower, they would not have been stopped at Stalingrad or Leningrad . . They would have steamrollered over the Red Army.”

The myth of the invincible Nazi Ubermenschen rears its ugly head. I think the Germans could not have beaten Russia under any circumstances. [Despite initial German successes, Voltaire’s Rule prevailed; in the end, God was indeed and once again, on the side of the largest battalions. DW]

In many parts of the Soviet Union, especially the Ukraine, the population was tired of Moscow’s rule and were prepared to see the Germans as liberators. The brutal SS implementation of Hitler’s “Liebestraum” plan to depopulate the Ukraine breadbasket and turn it over to German farmers, put a quick end to any potential Ukranian collaboration.

US aid was a great help to the Russians. I wouldn't say it made the difference between victory and defeat. The fact is, the Soviet Union was simply too big a meal for the German Reich to absorb.

I don't think WW2 could have ended any way other than it did. The Axis countries had stunning initial successes against their unprepared foes, but exceeded their own reach. Driven by fanatical ideologies that made them overconfident and blind to their own weaknesses and unwilling to exploit the conquered territories portended defeat in the end. That is the legacy of fascism. [Edited and bowdlerized by Don W]


Exactly.


posted by ignorant_ape


posted by Russian soldier
The winter did not win over the Germans, the Russians did. Just a reminder . .


Then why is "General Winter" cited as a key factor in the reversal of fortunes of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union? All credible historians including Soviet official records and now Russian scholarship agree without the winter and the mud, the Soviets would not have prevailed in the early months of 1942.

No disrespect intended to the Siberian divisions [who made the first sucessfull counter attacks] - but they were not elite troops. Their strength was they could fight at or near 100% efficiency in the Russian winter whilst the Nazis could not. If the Siberians had faced the Nazis in August 1941, they would have been swept aside. APE OUT [Edited and bowdlerized by Don W]



Reliable accounts show the Soviet generals used the Siberians as “gun fodder.” Overcoming Germans many times by sheer numbers. Total disregard of casualties. The USSR did indeed win a final victory, but at what price?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The Russians are far superior in every way but economically to the US. And I say this not as a Russian, because I'm not, but as someone that has an open mind about these sort of things. I am Mexican and I have a clear understanding of World History. Sure the US has a lot of money and people here live well, But in exchange for what? The loss of liberty. Yes I said it the loss of liberty. We as a people have grown complacent and dont bother about what is going on outside the borders that when someone like Prelude comes along we have no other option but to bash him and use arguments totaly Irrelevant to the original topic.

Nuclear weapons aside, The Red Army, (because it did not die with communism), will always be superior to The US. Someone tell me where the best scientists in the US are from? I assure you most if not all, are foreigners. And this is'nt because Americans are naturally stupid, this is because Americans are lazy. I am tired of whatching shows on the science channel feeding the people of this country lies... "The F-A-22 Raptor is the best plane in the world" or "There is not a weapon that compares to the M-16 or P-90." This is False. The MIG is the better fighter and the Kalashnikov is the better weapon. But understand, this is not because Americans are not capable of building better weapons its just that we would rather watch American Idol than spend an hour a day reading a book.


Oh and rogue1




The Red Army was far from glorious, they raped and pillaged their way half way across Europe, just the Nazi's actions in Russia reversed. Remember the 3 days at Demmin, the Red Army acted like the wild monkeys they were.


Open your eyes buddy this is the history of the world. Remember the 200 years of slavery toward blacks in this country. Or the EXTERMINATION of the Natives of this country. Research real history before saying anything.

dax.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   


posted by dax 13

The Russians are superior in every way but economically to the US. And I say this not as a Russian, because I'm not, but as someone that has an open mind about these sort of things. I am Mexican and have a clear understanding of World History. Sure the US has a lot of money and people here live well, Nuclear weapons aside, The Red Army - because it did not die with communism - will always be superior to The US.

Someone tell me where the best scientists in the US are from? Most are foreigners. This is because Americans are lazy. I am tired of watching tv feeding the people of this country lies. "The FA-22 Raptor is the best plane in the world." This is false. The MiG is the better fighter. But understand, this is not because Americans are not capable of building better weapons its just that we would rather watch American Idol than spend an hour a day reading a book.
[Edited by Don W]



OK, D13, you’ve hit a very important shortfall in our study and work habits. I guess we were spoiled after War 2. We are just now rejoining the world after enjoying that anomalous time in our history. It hurts. Globalization means time to get back to work. It will take an economic theorist to explain it to me, but it seems prosperity requires a nation to spend 10% of its GDP on non-consumable or non-productive goods. I used to say we could make ice cubes with equal advantage.

It seems the tax money spent on war - useless production - is needed to keep the economy moving. Can this be right? Is war to be perpetual for the good of the economy? So that we might all eat? Americans I’m referring to of course. Not to the 27,000 children who die every day around the world, from starvation or diseases exacerbated by malnutrition. I hear starvation is one of the most painful ways to die? Meanwhle ADM is making ethanol out of corn. Hmm?

Do you know there are no statistics on Americans dying from starvation? Apparently in medical school, doctors are told not to list that as a “cause of death.” Even in the Great Depression, it was never mentioned anyone starved to death. Horses and cows starved to death, but not people. Odd, isn’t it? Maybe that’s why we don’t seem to care about those 27,000 children. And who knows how many adults. Well, you know me, I’m always griping there are too many people anyway. The earth can only support 2 billion people over the long haul.

I’m hoping to see the Raptor die on the drawing board. Can’t we kill all the people we need to kill with F14 and F15 and now our newest, the F117A? Geez, how fast do you want to kill people? Help me, I’m at a loss here. All these weapons and no enemies. Now that is a problem!



[edit on 6/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
As much as I love Russia, I have to say that the F22 is a good plane and is needed for the US army. I see alot of dissing of Russia here, even though this thread is only on Russia's weapons. This happens everytime. I, however, unlike 90% of those that replied to this thread, will not diss the other country. Matter of fact, I think America is a great country (minus George Bush and most of the government) and some people are very friendly and I have a lot of US friends (though most of them are immigrants) that are very great people. Russia and US are both strong countries, and for now friends, so until they become enemies again, I don't see why there is dissing of each other. This seems to be a habit for some members to automatically go to and diss Russia everytime a thread opens on anything related. This dissing of countries is bs. I'll just say that Russia is still great. In some aspects it is poor, in some it is rich. It has great weapons, and very loyal soldiers. I am proud of each step the country takes, of each new weapon invented, of each new good change that comes about. For Russia!

Peace out, my honorable friends from all countries for all of which I have great respect





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join