Americans in WW2?
- Thread starter Galabab
- Start date
Johnny
Banned
jmervyn
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
Forces must be dispersed during maneuver and preparation, but able to concentrate fire on weak points in the attack, while they must be dispersed "in depth" for the defense. Missions on Urban Terrain are about the only place where you'll see deliberate force concentrations any longer, simply because any modern army would be able to destroy massed forces with NBC weapons or fuel-air explosives on pretty much any other terrian.
Kursk was barely recognized in the West, but despite it being one of the "set piece" battles you're asking for, it was also a grotesque waste of life. A beneficial waste, as it turns out, since Russia would have had problems dealing with the massed German forces if they had actually achieved their original tactical aims, rather than futzing about for months with the Russians pawing through their secret transmissions.
Yes, but you're making a mistake of scope comparison. Just because a battle is "big" or "small" doesn't mean an individual or unit doesn't go through sustained stress and suffering. Furthermore, modern warfare has made the "set piece" model completely obsolete; it was obsolete even during WW2 but tacticians hadn't recognized that truth yet.
Forces must be dispersed during maneuver and preparation, but able to concentrate fire on weak points in the attack, while they must be dispersed "in depth" for the defense. Missions on Urban Terrain are about the only place where you'll see deliberate force concentrations any longer, simply because any modern army would be able to destroy massed forces with NBC weapons or fuel-air explosives on pretty much any other terrian.
Kursk was barely recognized in the West, but despite it being one of the "set piece" battles you're asking for, it was also a grotesque waste of life. A beneficial waste, as it turns out, since Russia would have had problems dealing with the massed German forces if they had actually achieved their original tactical aims, rather than futzing about for months with the Russians pawing through their secret transmissions.
Ash Housewares
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
you win a war with resources
as for China, like Russia, the nation was damaged by world war, it took them over 20 years and also you're totally taking a modern reinterpretation by looking at the winning side and crediting them with knowing they were in the right without recognizing the truths of the time
so...yea... I don't understand this post, it doesn't make sense to me, victory through strength of leadership and morale isn't there anymore, in the sense you see it it's been dead since Balaklava and Gettysburg
you win a war with resources
as for China, like Russia, the nation was damaged by world war, it took them over 20 years and also you're totally taking a modern reinterpretation by looking at the winning side and crediting them with knowing they were in the right without recognizing the truths of the time
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
Pretty much. Tactics and leaderships and courage and now trumped by technology and money and logistics.
Johnny
Banned
Re: Americans in WW2?
Americans run around with $2000 assault rifles with air support equipment. You put an american soldier on guard he stands there for 45 minutes then he goes for a smoke. Vietnamese soldier sits there with his $20 AK for 2 days without food and water just to kill an enemy and the outcome reflects it.
Tell that to Vietnam.
Americans run around with $2000 assault rifles with air support equipment. You put an american soldier on guard he stands there for 45 minutes then he goes for a smoke. Vietnamese soldier sits there with his $20 AK for 2 days without food and water just to kill an enemy and the outcome reflects it.
pancakeman
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
Iwo Jima .
KillerAim
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
Johnny:
Johnny:
Don't believe Hollywood. We won every field battle we were in there including the Tet Offensive, which virtually destroyed the Viet Cong along with any resistance in the South. About in every way except for militarily, Vietnam was a classic SNAFU; however, strictly in that aspect, we kicked butt.
Johnny
Banned
Re: Americans in WW2?
Granted they didn't roll into washington but moving towards washington would have been something that would have justified the loss of 60.000 american soldiers.
Well the germans kicked butt in the second world war. Killing some 4 russians for every german killed but those soviet tanks still rolled into Berlin and Those north Vietnamese tanks still rolled into Saigon.
Granted they didn't roll into washington but moving towards washington would have been something that would have justified the loss of 60.000 american soldiers.
Ash Housewares
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
the soviets were producing tanks at a much greater rate than were the germans who lost the war squashed between two industrial super powers it had no chance of matching
Stoutwood
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
By that definition, no one ever went through that sort of hell. Maybe a nuclear war in the near future will change that, troll.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
also, no country can support a war, if it doesn't have the backing of the people... the country leaders have to hold true to moral values, or at least pretend like they're holding true to moral values, like krischan said earlier
they BELIEVED they were right, they had ideology (their very own) on their side, the peasantry, which was the deciding factor of decision force in china was sick of nationalist warlordism and lent itself to the communists wherever they went. Mao had the peasantry under his belt through pro-peasantry behaviour and declaration of pro-people ideals, while chiang kai shek was just a failed leader who couldn't make it out of his warlord mess in time and failed to garner any favour from the peasantry, pretending to be moral and also acting like it is the reason the communists tripped the nationalists over (the nationalist government broke under the circumstances, it didn't pass the test history put upon it, they fail)
you see, this is the truth. it was studied by dedicated historians (James Gray, John K. Fairbank). if you don't accept that as RIGHT, then you'll have trouble finding better sources...
@krischan: i see what you mean, the best example of morals giving strength to military could very well be those SS troops which went kamikaze (the no regards to body parts, recklessly storming the area type) near the end and senselessly increased their killing rate at a cost of survival rate, cutting through infantry like a melting knife through butter...
but you clearly replied to my post...
o, but it still is, it's just transformed.. example: in a guerilla war, as long as there's a minimum of it, resource doesn't matter all that much. you can have tanks and bombs, but you're never going to eliminate the guerilla, unless they start to waver in their belief, their leadership, their morals...
also, no country can support a war, if it doesn't have the backing of the people... the country leaders have to hold true to moral values, or at least pretend like they're holding true to moral values, like krischan said earlier
took them over 20 years to do what? what are you responding to? i was saying the communists won over the nationalists, i wasn't talking about china in general
they BELIEVED they were right, they had ideology (their very own) on their side, the peasantry, which was the deciding factor of decision force in china was sick of nationalist warlordism and lent itself to the communists wherever they went. Mao had the peasantry under his belt through pro-peasantry behaviour and declaration of pro-people ideals, while chiang kai shek was just a failed leader who couldn't make it out of his warlord mess in time and failed to garner any favour from the peasantry, pretending to be moral and also acting like it is the reason the communists tripped the nationalists over (the nationalist government broke under the circumstances, it didn't pass the test history put upon it, they fail)
you see, this is the truth. it was studied by dedicated historians (James Gray, John K. Fairbank). if you don't accept that as RIGHT, then you'll have trouble finding better sources...
@krischan: i see what you mean, the best example of morals giving strength to military could very well be those SS troops which went kamikaze (the no regards to body parts, recklessly storming the area type) near the end and senselessly increased their killing rate at a cost of survival rate, cutting through infantry like a melting knife through butter...
Last edited:
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: Americans in WW2?
The US are the good guys, they have a democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of press, so it's quite obvious what happens when people found out how many *drafted* US soldiers have died and how many innocent civilians had to suffer. Just fighting communism isn't enough of a justification for that war.
I hope I added enough cynism to my latest postings to point out what kind of decisions are to be made in a war (whether the leaders like making them like that or not) and that it's a pretty ugly issue which is not worth fighting in most cases. You often cannot win them as a "good guy" (and being willing to remain one), even if you are 10 times as strong.
I prefer the term Pyrrhus victories. You can lose a war, even if you won all battles. In a democracy, the population might not let the government get away with the losses, even if they won all the time, they killed 10 times as many Vietamese people and dropped more bombs on the country then in WW2. The US people recognized that the reasons didn't justify the means and the losses on both sides.
The US are the good guys, they have a democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of press, so it's quite obvious what happens when people found out how many *drafted* US soldiers have died and how many innocent civilians had to suffer. Just fighting communism isn't enough of a justification for that war.
I hope I added enough cynism to my latest postings to point out what kind of decisions are to be made in a war (whether the leaders like making them like that or not) and that it's a pretty ugly issue which is not worth fighting in most cases. You often cannot win them as a "good guy" (and being willing to remain one), even if you are 10 times as strong.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
an american might disagree, though, and say: if you don't eliminate problems, they'll continue to grow and someday stab you in the back (or kick you in the face), so while you still have the power, you should try to stop them by all means..
i agree that fighting communism isn't a strong cause... but i can also understand that at that time americans saw it differently (some world communism theory threatening their way of life? panic panic...)
just like some people are inclined to panic when they see another previously annoying country turn into a nuke-negotiating political heavy-weight (WMD's?)...
a true display of post-war attitude...krischan said:
an american might disagree, though, and say: if you don't eliminate problems, they'll continue to grow and someday stab you in the back (or kick you in the face), so while you still have the power, you should try to stop them by all means..
i agree that fighting communism isn't a strong cause... but i can also understand that at that time americans saw it differently (some world communism theory threatening their way of life? panic panic...)
just like some people are inclined to panic when they see another previously annoying country turn into a nuke-negotiating political heavy-weight (WMD's?)...
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: Americans in WW2?
It depends a lot of what the goal is. If you just invade the Iraq to destroy their industry for building nukes (assuming they had one), all is fine. Go in, blow it all up, maybe take the scientists with you, leave and as you are already there, remove the current dictator from power. Mission accomplished. Only leave troops if there's not much resistance to be expected, else voters at home will get upset when too many soldiers die. If another dictator emerges, it doesn't matter. He will know that the US army can come back at any time and do with him what they did to his predecessor.
Changing a political system to something of our liking (aka freedom and democracy as the US or us Europeans understand it), which it has never been in the last 5000 years of their history is something completely different. In short, it won't work, no matter to which extent we are convinced that it's better. I guess, as soon as the US and their allies leave the Iraq or Afghanistan, people will continue to do what they did in the last few hundreds of years, just like people everywhere in the world. Lasting changes of that kind usually aren't made by foreign forces, but by the people themselves.
It depends a lot of what the goal is. If you just invade the Iraq to destroy their industry for building nukes (assuming they had one), all is fine. Go in, blow it all up, maybe take the scientists with you, leave and as you are already there, remove the current dictator from power. Mission accomplished. Only leave troops if there's not much resistance to be expected, else voters at home will get upset when too many soldiers die. If another dictator emerges, it doesn't matter. He will know that the US army can come back at any time and do with him what they did to his predecessor.
Changing a political system to something of our liking (aka freedom and democracy as the US or us Europeans understand it), which it has never been in the last 5000 years of their history is something completely different. In short, it won't work, no matter to which extent we are convinced that it's better. I guess, as soon as the US and their allies leave the Iraq or Afghanistan, people will continue to do what they did in the last few hundreds of years, just like people everywhere in the world. Lasting changes of that kind usually aren't made by foreign forces, but by the people themselves.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
so basically, doing this kind of operation means committing yourself to a lot of baby-sitting, which the voters of course won't like
basically, removing a dictator is a messy thing and will most likely end up in enough infrastructural damage that you need to stay there for an extended period... it isn't as simple as "mission accomplished" this is not a "team america" mission (saw that film?, they blow up the louvre with missiles because a terrorist hid himself with a bomb in there and then they just leave the scene)
so basically, doing this kind of operation means committing yourself to a lot of baby-sitting, which the voters of course won't like
i agree with this mostly, although i can think of counter-examples (weimar failed partly because germany was left on its own without mentionable support, but in the second try, it worked, the amis/allies showed some commitment that time around)
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: Americans in WW2?
Germany after WW2 was completely different. Most people accepted that it was their fault and that killing the Jews etc. was a terrible crime (well, not all of them admitted to that and most didn't really want to talk or hear about it). Also, the US is culturally much nearer to Germany than to most other countries of the world, including most of Europe.
After WW1, people were convinced that it was as well the fault of the others, so any attempts to change something by outside force would have had a far lower chance of success. The Versailles treaty, the demilitarization of the Rhineland and the restrictions on the army were considered as unjust and a great humiliation, not just by right wing diehards, but by maybe 75% of the population and it produced a lot of hate, in particular towards France.
I'm just repeating what people thought about the issue after WW1, it might not be my own opinion BTW - a few people often confuse that :whistling:
Germany after WW2 was completely different. Most people accepted that it was their fault and that killing the Jews etc. was a terrible crime (well, not all of them admitted to that and most didn't really want to talk or hear about it). Also, the US is culturally much nearer to Germany than to most other countries of the world, including most of Europe.
After WW1, people were convinced that it was as well the fault of the others, so any attempts to change something by outside force would have had a far lower chance of success. The Versailles treaty, the demilitarization of the Rhineland and the restrictions on the army were considered as unjust and a great humiliation, not just by right wing diehards, but by maybe 75% of the population and it produced a lot of hate, in particular towards France.
I'm just repeating what people thought about the issue after WW1, it might not be my own opinion BTW - a few people often confuse that :whistling:
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
alright, but you have to admit that some sort of building up or economical support or cutting some slack in versailles (in terms of war guilt repair and all that) or something might be just the sort of outside influence that would've prevented hitler from getting too many votes (thereby putting him in a position that would give him the chance to abuse the legal system, which was due to a major flaw in two articles of the law...)
whatever you think about the people not changing their minds, i feel that some more allied interest in germany might've been beneficial (they didn't show any significant interest)
personally, i think they could've done a lot more than just abandoning weimar to a bunch of insurmountable circumstances and treaty conditions
alright, but you have to admit that some sort of building up or economical support or cutting some slack in versailles (in terms of war guilt repair and all that) or something might be just the sort of outside influence that would've prevented hitler from getting too many votes (thereby putting him in a position that would give him the chance to abuse the legal system, which was due to a major flaw in two articles of the law...)
whatever you think about the people not changing their minds, i feel that some more allied interest in germany might've been beneficial (they didn't show any significant interest)
personally, i think they could've done a lot more than just abandoning weimar to a bunch of insurmountable circumstances and treaty conditions
Galabab
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
I had no time to answer and meanwhile the thread draft(?) off in a very different direction.
But i like it!
Very interesting discussion.
And I think ill throw in my controversal view
So we have all those previous attempts of suppressing a nation. From defeated nazi germany to todays eastern conflicts.
We see most of them failed aside of germany. Why? What was different in germany?
Krischan brought up the well known thingy bout germans having mostly accepted their wrongdoings and allies having done a great job with a well tailored constitution. Does make sense so far.
BUT, if you ask a guy from the street in Afghanistan what he thinks of Taliban. He will most likely condemn it. Sincere, intelligent guy. The US brought them new constitution. Everything to start anew. But guess what as soon as last forein soldier leaves afghanistan it will be all back like in the old days. You can say its cuz of the history and culture of those people, but i think its totally wrong. Afghans aint that different that they would prefere a knout(?) over a nice life.
No Krischan, your view doesnt explain it. Its too theoretical. Ofcourse you are right but what you named is not essential. You overlook a single deciesive factor. Most deceisive factor in human bahavier.
FEAR.
The only way to really rule over a forein nation is by fear. Think about it. It all will make sense.
The germans had the text book bad cop good cop strategy tested on them. They FEARED the russians. The rumor spread russians would kill and rape and enslave everybody. Where the russians took stance, millions were departed to siberia.
You know how Gulag found out about the troublemalers? They imprisoned EVERY suspect. Forced him (by torture) to write down like 20 names of his comrades. This way 99% of people who were sent to siberia were completly innocent. But it spread FEAR. Fear to in any way endanger yourself and your family. People in eastern germany instantly adepted and went really quite and communist. People in western germany were so glad they didnt have the commies on their back, they embraced the (good cop) Allied troops.
Look, both brutal dictatorships, nazi germany and soviet union had no problems with uprisings at all! All people "LOVED" the official ways. Its normal. Its human and its a fact.
The same scheme is still valid. Humane western powers totally fail at "persuading" people. No matter how hard they try. As long as the Talibs can come back the people will fear and give in. It may be a possible solution by the way to devide afghanistan into taliban/democratic parts. This may save at least one part. It worked with germany and korea.
Why separate?
Becouse if the fear comes from within the country, it overpowers the people they cannot feel safe and they give in to the fear. If the source of fear is behind a border, people are working together. Its simple. Just like in prehistoric times. A danger from outside creates strong bonds. A danger from within tears people apart.
I had no time to answer and meanwhile the thread draft(?) off in a very different direction.
But i like it!
Very interesting discussion.
And I think ill throw in my controversal view
So we have all those previous attempts of suppressing a nation. From defeated nazi germany to todays eastern conflicts.
We see most of them failed aside of germany. Why? What was different in germany?
Krischan brought up the well known thingy bout germans having mostly accepted their wrongdoings and allies having done a great job with a well tailored constitution. Does make sense so far.
BUT, if you ask a guy from the street in Afghanistan what he thinks of Taliban. He will most likely condemn it. Sincere, intelligent guy. The US brought them new constitution. Everything to start anew. But guess what as soon as last forein soldier leaves afghanistan it will be all back like in the old days. You can say its cuz of the history and culture of those people, but i think its totally wrong. Afghans aint that different that they would prefere a knout(?) over a nice life.
No Krischan, your view doesnt explain it. Its too theoretical. Ofcourse you are right but what you named is not essential. You overlook a single deciesive factor. Most deceisive factor in human bahavier.
FEAR.
The only way to really rule over a forein nation is by fear. Think about it. It all will make sense.
The germans had the text book bad cop good cop strategy tested on them. They FEARED the russians. The rumor spread russians would kill and rape and enslave everybody. Where the russians took stance, millions were departed to siberia.
You know how Gulag found out about the troublemalers? They imprisoned EVERY suspect. Forced him (by torture) to write down like 20 names of his comrades. This way 99% of people who were sent to siberia were completly innocent. But it spread FEAR. Fear to in any way endanger yourself and your family. People in eastern germany instantly adepted and went really quite and communist. People in western germany were so glad they didnt have the commies on their back, they embraced the (good cop) Allied troops.
Look, both brutal dictatorships, nazi germany and soviet union had no problems with uprisings at all! All people "LOVED" the official ways. Its normal. Its human and its a fact.
The same scheme is still valid. Humane western powers totally fail at "persuading" people. No matter how hard they try. As long as the Talibs can come back the people will fear and give in. It may be a possible solution by the way to devide afghanistan into taliban/democratic parts. This may save at least one part. It worked with germany and korea.
Why separate?
Becouse if the fear comes from within the country, it overpowers the people they cannot feel safe and they give in to the fear. If the source of fear is behind a border, people are working together. Its simple. Just like in prehistoric times. A danger from outside creates strong bonds. A danger from within tears people apart.
Last edited:
KillerAim
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Americans in WW2?
Johnny:
- - -
krischan:
- - -
Galabab
Johnny:
The difference being that we were out of Vietnam for two years before that happened. Even if you wanted to pin the loss on the failure of our training the South Vietnamese to handle their own battles, we basically stopped supporting them in the last year before the takeover.
- - -
krischan:
I was strictly responding to how the military performed in Vietnam. I wasn’t trying to address the validity of going there or whether or not we should have left when we did, nor was I commenting on the consequences of the war. Johnny basically implied that we lost because the Vietnamese soldiers were better: tougher, more dedicated, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.
- - -
Galabab
What about Italy and Japan?