|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 15, 2011 4:36:02 GMT -5
The Russians call him "Marshal Winter". Oh, and in the spring, you get to meet his buddy, General Mud. The Germans didn't lose because Russia is cold*. They lost because the Soviet army was bigger and better than the Wehrmact and had better supplies on men and machines. This allowed them to defend Moscow and Leningrad, rebuild their forces and then launch effective counter-attacks at Stalingrad. The winter was only a tool in holding off the Wehrmact, and not the only one. The actual defeating of them and liberating of Russia had to be done by the Red Army. I mean, do we say that the Viet Cong won Vietnam because of the jungle? Or the Chinese beat the Americans at Chosin because of the cold? No, that's ridiculous. People had to fight for those to be victories. Those people won the battle, not the terrain. * Nor did Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 6:43:27 GMT -5
The Russians call him "Marshal Winter". Oh, and in the spring, you get to meet his buddy, General Mud. The Germans didn't lose because Russia is cold*. They lost because the Soviet army was bigger and better than the Wehrmact and had better supplies on men and machines. This allowed them to defend Moscow and Leningrad, rebuild their forces and then launch effective counter-attacks at Stalingrad. The winter was only a tool in holding off the Wehrmact, and not the only one. The actual defeating of them and liberating of Russia had to be done by the Red Army. I mean, do we say that the Viet Cong won Vietnam because of the jungle? Or the Chinese beat the Americans at Chosin because of the cold? No, that's ridiculous. People had to fight for those to be victories. Those people won the battle, not the terrain. * Nor did Napoleon. All hail the revolutionary komrades! You fucking sicken me. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 6:45:04 GMT -5
*stares at lighthorseman* *looks over to someone else and twirls his finger by his ear* I've met other Aussies who essentially take the same position on these things. I've also met Americans who swear they won WWI and WWII pretty much all on their own, and who seem entirely unaware of the role played by the French in the American Revolution. I've met Russians who insist Russia single handedly defeated Hitler, Englishmen who say the same thing, and Italians who swear that they defeated Mussolini. I've met Chinese who insist they won the Korean Conflict, Cubans who swear they were the deciding factor in the Spanish American War, and Texans who stubbornly assert that the Alamo was a victory. People will slant it to themselves regardless of actual fact. I've actally encountered Japanese people who insist that they won their war of self defence against Western Imperialism. Yes, thats the Second World War I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 15, 2011 6:56:51 GMT -5
The Germans didn't lose because Russia is cold*. They lost because the Soviet army was bigger and better than the Wehrmact and had better supplies on men and machines. This allowed them to defend Moscow and Leningrad, rebuild their forces and then launch effective counter-attacks at Stalingrad. The winter was only a tool in holding off the Wehrmact, and not the only one. The actual defeating of them and liberating of Russia had to be done by the Red Army. I mean, do we say that the Viet Cong won Vietnam because of the jungle? Or the Chinese beat the Americans at Chosin because of the cold? No, that's ridiculous. People had to fight for those to be victories. Those people won the battle, not the terrain. * Nor did Napoleon. All hail the revolutionary komrades! You fucking sicken me. That's some nice trollolololololing you've got there. Needless to say, consistency* and respect regardless of national or political difference is not worthy of contempt. * If I said that Australians only won Tobruk because of the heat (rather than an effective battle strategy, well-founded tactics, skill and bravery) you'd be rightly insulted. It's hypocracy to be 'sickened' when I take exception at someone doing exactly the same damn thing with regards to another country's troops. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 7:10:18 GMT -5
All hail the revolutionary komrades! You fucking sicken me. That's some nice trollolololololing you've got there. Needless to say, consistency* and respect regardless of national or political difference is not worthy of contempt. * If I said that Australians only won Tobruk because of the heat (rather than an effective battle strategy, well-founded tactics, skill and bravery) you'd be rightly insulted. It's hypocracy to be 'sickened' when I take exception at someone doing exactly the same damn thing with regards to another country's troops. A. The fact that it is only COMMUNIST countries you are doing it for is beyond telling, B. If you knew anything what so ever about military history, you would know that the weather, in and of itself, is often a decisive factor in combat. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 15, 2011 7:18:09 GMT -5
That's some nice trollolololololing you've got there. Needless to say, consistency* and respect regardless of national or political difference is not worthy of contempt. * If I said that Australians only won Tobruk because of the heat (rather than an effective battle strategy, well-founded tactics, skill and bravery) you'd be rightly insulted. It's hypocracy to be 'sickened' when I take exception at someone doing exactly the same damn thing with regards to another country's troops. A. The fact that it is only COMMUNIST countries you are doing it for is beyond telling, Trololololol! I'm sure the Tsarist, pre-communist Russian government that fought Napoleon count as communist somehow, but I'm not sure how they do. Nah. I've always felt that the soldiers were rather decisive. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 7:37:46 GMT -5
A. The fact that it is only COMMUNIST countries you are doing it for is beyond telling, Trololololol! I'm sure the Tsarist, pre-communist Russian government that fought Napoleon count as communist somehow, but I'm not sure how they do. You mentioned Napoleon as an adendum. Your praise was for the communist forces. Please go and suck Julia Gillards cock and get it out of your system already? Which is why I find the "lt" in your name offensive. There is more to war than the prowess of a given soldier. History is littered with defeated armies of excellent soldiers who's commanders failed to take other factors into account. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 15, 2011 8:33:36 GMT -5
I'm probably going to regret getting involved in this, but what the hey. Trololololol! I'm sure the Tsarist, pre-communist Russian government that fought Napoleon count as communist somehow, but I'm not sure how they do. You mentioned Napoleon as an adendum. Your praise was for the communist forces. Please go and suck Julia Gillards cock and get it out of your system already? Mate, the post Fred was responding to initially (Meshakad's, back on the previous page) was specifically taking about Operation Barbarossa, so I fail to see how the focus on the Red Army is uncalled for. Not to mention I fail to see how acknowledging a Soviet victory translates as praise for communism (or for that matter what it has to do with Gillard). Nah. I've always felt that the soldiers were rather decisive. Which is why I find the "lt" in your name offensive. There is more to war than the prowess of a given soldier. History is littered with defeated armies of excellent soldiers who's commanders failed to take other factors into account. I may be missing something here, but I think Fred's point is that factors such as terrain only serve influence the performance of the forces in question, not dictate the outcome. Of course, they can sometimes be a rather huge factor, like the Russian winter, but in the end the outcome is still dependant on the performance of the opposing forces in question. Case in point, if the Red Army consisted of a couple of kids with pointy sticks, the Germans would've mopped the floor with them, winter or not. I get that you don't like Freddy, and I'll happily admit he has his stupid moments, but you know, forum chew toys only work when they actually say something objectionable. If you go into flame mode over a perfectly reasonable post, it just make you look like the idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jun 15, 2011 8:45:54 GMT -5
/mod hat on
This ain't in F&B. Knock off the goddamn "YOU'RE A FUCKING COMMIE" shit-trolling or win a vacation.
/mod hat off
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 11:13:09 GMT -5
Sorry. The weather is frequently the decider in many campaigns throughout history. The various Rusian campaigns being a couple fo examples. In the case of the Russians, they WERE, in fact, frequently guys with sticks, not necessarily even pointed. Also for you consideration, Agincourt and the Dithmarschen campaign. Both occasions were unquestionably elite forces were routed by numerically inferior troops (in the Dithmarschen case, peasants with no military training at all) because of the weather. Yes, of course the soldiers play their part. But again, history is littered with excellent soldiers' corpses because their commanders failed to appreciate terrain, or weather, or a new tactic being used by the OPFOR. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 15, 2011 11:33:41 GMT -5
Yes, I get that factors such as weather and terrain can make a huge difference on the outcome of the battle, just the point is the outcome is ultimately decided by the efforts of the opposing forces. The Russian winter is all well and good, but it wouldn't be anything more then an inconvenience if the Russians weren't shooting Germans. The winter certainly made the task much easier for the Russians, but the Russians were still the ones doing the fighting. Dithmarschen is very much the same, the weather certainly assisted the peasants in a very big way, but it was still the fighting of the peasants that was directly responsible for victory.
Of course weather plays a large role in war, I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm just saying that such factors only serve to either augment or hinder the fighting ability of a particular force (yes, sometimes by a huge amount), not directly determine the outcome. It's the actions of the armed forces of both sides that ultimately decide the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 11:51:02 GMT -5
Yes, I get that factors such as weather and terrain can make a huge difference on the outcome of the battle, just the point is the outcome is ultimately decided by the efforts of the opposing forces. The Russian winter is all well and good, but it wouldn't be anything more then an inconvenience if the Russians weren't shooting Germans. The winter certainly made the task much easier for the Russians, but the Russians were still the ones doing the fighting. Dithmarschen is very much the same, the weather certainly assisted the peasants in a very big way, but it was still the fighting of the peasants that was directly responsible for victory. Of course weather plays a large role in war, I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm just saying that such factors only serve to either augment or hinder the fighting ability of a particular force (yes, sometimes by a huge amount), not directly determine the outcome. It's the actions of the armed forces of both sides that ultimately decide the outcome. I disagree with the use of the word "ultimately" there. Of course, the forces involved play a pivotal role... however, in many, many cases had a few different parametres been changed, history could have been very different, even with the exact same force disposition. Had the Russian Winter not been so harsh, the Germans may have fought Stalin to a standstill (maybe). Had the French appreciated the mountains around Dien Bien Phu better, Vietnam may well still be French Indochina. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 15, 2011 12:01:14 GMT -5
Yes, I get that factors such as weather and terrain can make a huge difference on the outcome of the battle, just the point is the outcome is ultimately decided by the efforts of the opposing forces. The Russian winter is all well and good, but it wouldn't be anything more then an inconvenience if the Russians weren't shooting Germans. The winter certainly made the task much easier for the Russians, but the Russians were still the ones doing the fighting. Dithmarschen is very much the same, the weather certainly assisted the peasants in a very big way, but it was still the fighting of the peasants that was directly responsible for victory. Of course weather plays a large role in war, I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm just saying that such factors only serve to either augment or hinder the fighting ability of a particular force (yes, sometimes by a huge amount), not directly determine the outcome. It's the actions of the armed forces of both sides that ultimately decide the outcome. I disagree with the use of the word "ultimately" there. Of course, the forces involved play a pivotal role... however, in many, many cases had a few different parametres been changed, history could have been very different, even with the exact same force disposition. Had the Russian Winter not been so harsh, the Germans may have fought Stalin to a standstill (maybe). Had the French appreciated the mountains around Dien Bien Phu better, Vietnam may well still be French Indochina. Of course, because without the Russian winter, the fighting ability of the Wermacht would be greatly improved. Were it not for the jungle covered mountains of Dien Bien Phu, the French bombers would've been able to both find and destroy the Viet Minh artillery, were it not for a rather inconvenient storm, the Battle of the Coral Sea may have been a decisive victory for either Japan or the US. However, the differences all of the above would've made is that it would make it either significantly easier or harder for one side or the other to fight effectively, it would not directly change the outcome of the battle. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 12:30:27 GMT -5
I disagree with the use of the word "ultimately" there. Of course, the forces involved play a pivotal role... however, in many, many cases had a few different parametres been changed, history could have been very different, even with the exact same force disposition. Had the Russian Winter not been so harsh, the Germans may have fought Stalin to a standstill (maybe). Had the French appreciated the mountains around Dien Bien Phu better, Vietnam may well still be French Indochina. Of course, because without the Russian winter, the fighting ability of the Wermacht would be greatly improved. Were it not for the jungle covered mountains of Dien Bien Phu, the French bombers would've been able to both find and destroy the Viet Minh artillery, were it not for a rather inconvenient storm, the Battle of the Coral Sea may have been a decisive victory for either Japan or the US. However, the differences all of the above would've made is that it would make it either significantly easier or harder for one side or the other to fight effectively, it would not directly change the outcome of the battle. Well, it would if the side that won, lost, because the weather conditions that allowed them to win didn't occur. Big one... had the storm not crashed the Spanish Armada into Ireland repeatedly... |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 15, 2011 12:43:10 GMT -5
Of course, because without the Russian winter, the fighting ability of the Wermacht would be greatly improved. Were it not for the jungle covered mountains of Dien Bien Phu, the French bombers would've been able to both find and destroy the Viet Minh artillery, were it not for a rather inconvenient storm, the Battle of the Coral Sea may have been a decisive victory for either Japan or the US. However, the differences all of the above would've made is that it would make it either significantly easier or harder for one side or the other to fight effectively, it would not directly change the outcome of the battle. Well, it would if the side that won, lost, because the weather conditions that allowed them to win didn't occur. Big one... had the storm not crashed the Spanish Armada into Ireland repeatedly... ...The Spanish Armada would've been able to put up a far better fight, possibly to the point of defeating the English navy. Nevertheless, the battle itself would still be either won or lost by the fighting done by both sides. Even with the storm destroying the better portion of the Spanish Armada and damaging the rest, the battle was not decided until the English successfully fought off what remaining forces the Spanish still had. |
|
