rebelsquirrell
Grandmaster Knight
I would seem that if there ok with potentially blowing up the risk of rape is a piss poor justification for prohibition.
Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016
- Thread starter IA
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Grandmaster Knight
Dodes said:
I know difference between an army and an air force, I think. It is that I have never heard anyone saying that Soviet equipment was of higher quality than the one of Amis / Tommies, apart from some designs; but then again, it is the design and not a quality of the thing. And as for the operational skill, I tend to connect Red Army in 1945 mainly with the operations on Dukla which were just disastrous (at best), which is why I would like to see some longer post explaining these claims.
Dodes
Count
The M1 Garand Semi-Automatic rifle actually decreased squad combat efficiency for example.
Don't confuse Red Army in 41' with Red Army in 45'
Russian tanks were also amazingly good in WW2, exceeding the Germans in many cases, who were forced to hastily develop superheavy tanks and tank destroyers to hold on till the last fight.
If we're going to start debating late WW2 armies, throw out everyone besides UK vs USSR, as that is the only viable argument in my mind.
Have no mistake, the Allies would have won Operation Unthinkable despite it all.
Don't confuse Red Army in 41' with Red Army in 45'
Russian tanks were also amazingly good in WW2, exceeding the Germans in many cases, who were forced to hastily develop superheavy tanks and tank destroyers to hold on till the last fight.
If we're going to start debating late WW2 armies, throw out everyone besides UK vs USSR, as that is the only viable argument in my mind.
Have no mistake, the Allies would have won Operation Unthinkable despite it all.
Dodes said:
Who's the best ever is something for Armchair Generals and a discussion down a road I don't want to go, but as far as their armies. I tend to believe they focused more on just massive numbers over any amazing quality.
You only have to look at the Winter War to see a country using mostly donations from everyone and putting them together into a potluck defence can cause such massive differences in K/D doesn't speak well for their fighting ability. Their logistical skills were also horrible. You only have to look at how many aircraft they lost just transporting them to the front.
As far as tanks, The T34 was a great tank nothing wrong with it, but the Tiger and Panther were better tanks. The Tiger with it's 88mm gun and a range of nearly 3 miles and it's ability to penetrate 6 inches of armor with utmost ease. Tigers also had 4 inches of armor and were almost unstoppable unless hit from behind, in the air, or in the tracks. I've even seen reports detailing allied tank commanders firing at Tigers and Panthers and seeing their rounds just ricochet off.
The Panther could have won the war if only more could have been built. Their sloped armor made the Panthers nearly impossible to stop as with Tigers. The Panther also had the 75mm gun which had good penetration. It featured stabolization on both horizontal and vertical and one of the best suspension systems for a tank. Excellent gun, had excellent frontal armor and superb cross-country mobility - what more can ask for in a tank?
These two are really only ignored because they arrived so late their few numbers couldn't do anything about their poor war position.
EDIT: May as well go into the Officers
Soviet leadership was too afraid to do anything. If they were too skilled they became a threat to Stalin and would be executed. If they did too poorly in the field they'd be executed for failure or careers would be ended. So Soviet officers had to ride a fine line to even survive. A little late but their 2 officer system crippled their ability to make any effective decisions. The political officer could countermand the battlefield officers at anytime and was just a stupid idea.
Zhukov was a butcher IMO and he wouldn't have done as well if he'd had to face someone like Rommel.
So even if you could debate their better army. They lack of great direction with it would counter this.
Günther, that's a piss poor excuse. If we ever want things to get better, especially in the US, then mixed-gender units are the way to go.
As for Red Army, watch this space. I don't have time right now but I'll come back to it in a few hours. And no, Allies would not have won Operation Unthinkable.
As for Red Army, watch this space. I don't have time right now but I'll come back to it in a few hours. And no, Allies would not have won Operation Unthinkable.
Dodes said:
I was mainly interested in the quality thing. If we are going to debate the flashy tanks, Yankees had used quite a lot of M4A3E8s by then, and E8s were superior to T-34/85 in nearly every aspect, maybe apart from the silhouette and pressure. But that is not what I meant by quality. I meant the ability to produce things in such way that they it does not hamper their effectivity and soldiers do not ***** at using them.
ejnomad said:
No, just no.
Jhessail said:
Don't bother with an explaination. 1v1 in 1945. We had Nukes and Bombers. Not to mention Aircraft Carriers and better figher planes. Suggesting Red Army comes out the victor in 1945 would be silly. They also didn't have the industry for any long term warfare.
Okay, so I'm first copy&pasting stuff from my old Military History of the USSR lecture, after which I'll address specific questions. Here we go:
Modernization of the Red Army begins in 1925, thanks to Mikhail Frunze who had been Trotsky’s deputy
Frunze’s reforms established the foundation of the armed forces that would eventually fight against Germany
His ideas were too ambitious and grandiose for the fledling Soviet Union
From early 1930s, the industrial system started to turn out large quantities of weapons. By January 1935, Red Army had:
Modernization of the Red Army begins in 1925, thanks to Mikhail Frunze who had been Trotsky’s deputy
- Compromise between professional army and a proletarian militia
- Officer training improved (Frunze Academy)
- Military ranks established, commissars could not usurp officers responsibility, uniform introduced
- Discipline code introduced
Frunze’s reforms established the foundation of the armed forces that would eventually fight against Germany
- Frunze himself died in 1925, after only ten months in office
- Chronic stomach problems, died after surgery
- Kliment Voroshilov, inept ”Old Guard” Bolshevik with no military training, took his place
- Luckily for the USSR, his deputy was the energetic Mikhail Tukhachevsky
- Believed in the new way of war, like Liddell Hart, Fuller, Guderian and DeGaulle
- Argued that USSR needs massive numbers of tanks and planes for the deep offensive operations envisaged
- Future War was published in 1928, almost identical to what military strategists in the West were saying
- Unsurprisingly, there was military co-operation between the USSR and the German Reichswehr from 1922
His ideas were too ambitious and grandiose for the fledling Soviet Union
- The 5-year plans were not yet established, there was no industrial strength to fill his plans
- Was dismissed in 1928, moved to Leningrad
- He still argued for his ideas, sending memorandum to Kreml
- The core of his reforms survived:
- Defence in depth was rejected
- Delaying action at border, complimented by deep offensive against enemy homeland
- Formal plan was written by his successor, Boris Shaposhnikov
From early 1930s, the industrial system started to turn out large quantities of weapons. By January 1935, Red Army had:
- 10,180 tanks
- 6,672 planes
Proportion of the national product devoted to defence sector:- 1913 5.2%
- 1932 9%
- 1940 19%
After Stalin saw what Soviet industry was now capable of, he started taking Tukhachvesky’s ideas more seriously- Promoted to Chief of Armanents in 1931
- Promoted again to Chief of Staff by 1934
- He didn’t rest; immediately demanded the production of:
- 15,000 aircraft
- 90,000 tanks
The Great Purge
Touched the Red Army on the morning of 11 June 1937 with the arrest of Tukhachvesky and other top generals for plotting a coup with Germany- Total of 41,218 officers were purged
- Many were only dismissed and later reinstated
- 3/5 Marshals, 13/15 Army Commanders, 8/9 Admirals, 50/57 Corps Commanders, 154/186 Division Commanders, all 16 Army Commissars and 25/28 Corps Commissars
The Purge is often said to have destroyed the leadership of the Red Army, playing a significant part in the defeats of 1939 and 1941
However, this is a simplistic view
Many young officers, trained in military Academies, were rising through the ranks
The capabilities of the Red Army were good only on paper even before the Purge
Still, the Purge paralyzed officers and gave commissars godly power over them
Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol
Japanese attempts to enlarge their territory in Korea / Manchuria
First one a small victory for the USSR after initial Japanese success
The second a complete victory for the Red Army (Zhukov)
Lesson learned: an infantry force cannot withstand a properly used mechanized force in suitable terrain
Winter War 1939-1940
Stalin was afraid that Finland might ally with Germany in future
USSR borders were being pushed west thanks to M-R Treaty (Baltic States, Poland, Bessarabia)
USSR demanded significant territorial concessions plus military bases on Finnish territory
Finland refuses, Soviet attack begins on 30 November 1939
Instead of a quick two-week operation, Soviet losses mount and the Red Army is held up against the main defensive line -> stalemate
Even more embarrasingly, Soviet formations up north are encircled and destroyed
Only through significant reinforcements and preparations, does the Red Army manage to pierce Finnish lines in February
Truce in March, USSR got 10% of Finnish land
What was different?
Finnish Winter War- Hostile climate and terrain
- Underestimation of enemy
- Piecemeal usage of equipment
- Enemy defending homeland
- International attention
- Inexperienced troops and officers
- Favourable climate and terrain
- Proper evaluation of enemy
- Massed use of tanks, planes and artillery
- Enemy defending uninhabited Imperial region
- No international attention
- Mostly experienced troops
Barbarossa
Soviet losses in every three-month period of the war (except April-June 1943) were greater than American losses for the whole war
Soviet military losses were about 10,000,000 of which 3,000,000 were POWs
Soviet total loss of life was about 27 million
Red Army lost majority of its equipment during 1941 and then again in 1942
Barbarossa ’41 – the initial German attack
Typhoon ’41 – the attempt to capture Moscow
Case Blue ’42 – the south offensive towards Baku and Stalingrad
Uranus ’42 – the Soviet encirclement of German 6th Army in Stalingrad
Citadel ’43 – the German offensive at Kursk and Soviet counter-attack
Bagration ’44 – Soviet destroyal of German Heeresgruppe Mitte, drive to Poland
Berlin ’45 – the final push
Barbarossa 1941
USSR had ample intelligence of German attack
This was not reacted upon
Red Army not prepared for the attack
German surprise
Most of Soviet air force destroyed on ground
Deep breakthroughs, many Soviet formations encircled and destroyed
90% of Soviet tank strength lost in the first weeks
Germany captures Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus, threatens Leningrad and Moscow
Typhoon 1941
German final push for Moscow
Severely depleted and tired German forces
By 28th November German 7th Panzer was only 35 km (22 mi) from Kreml
By 2nd December German recon battallion got as near as 8 km (5 mi) from Moscow
Soviet reserves manage to stop Germans
Counter-attack by fresh Siberian troops successful, Germans pushed back significantly
Case Blue 1942
Premature Soviet offenses during the spring lead to the destruction of several painstakingly formed Red Army reserves
Wehrmacht attacks in the south – target Baku oilfields on Caucasus
Almost as much of a success as Barbarossa a year before, the steppe being excellent tank country
Industrial city of Stalingrad becomes important only later in the campaign – significant propaganda due to its name
Uranus & Little Saturn 1942-1943
Zhukov’s plan: pin Germans down in Stalingrad while gathering strong enough force for a classic double envelopment pincer attack
Stalin agrees, utmost secrecy keeps the Germans unaware
Attack targets weaker Romanian, Hungarian and Italian armies on the sides of German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army
Massive success
German counter-attacks ineffective, Paulus ordered to fight to the last man, air relief far too little
Stalingrad – the turning point?
Stalingrad was the first major loss for Germany
But it was not the turning point of the war, except in hindsight (no major German strategic victories after)
While German losses were severe (147,000 KIA & 91,000 POW), they could be – mostly – recovered from and most importantly, the Panzer units were still mostly intact
Soviet losses had also been severe (~500,000 KIA)
Important propaganda and moral victory for USSR
Red Army Reborn
During 1942 and 1943, Red Army managed, in the middle of the bloodiest war in history, to reform itself
Between ’42 and ’45, 43 Tank Corps and 22 Mechanized Corps were activated
Number of tanks in units was increased while number of men decreased
Move from human wave to armoured wave
Firepower of an infantry division quadrupled from 1941 to 1944
Radios became commonplace and properly used
In 1941 six or seven Soviet tanks destroyed for every German tank, in 1944 ratio was down to one-to-one (only calculating direct tank-to-tank fights)
Air power was similarly concentrated and new planes finally mirrored German performance
Citadel – Kursk 1943
German summer offensive, aimed at wrestling initiative back from Soviets
USSR correctly estimates location, date and strength
Massive defensive preparations – 1,336,000 men; 3,444 tanks; 2,900 planes; 19,000 guns; 400,000 mines; 40% of Soviet manpower and 75% Soviet armoured forces concentrated in place
For once, Germany did not have the element of surprise
Largest tank battle in history (Prokhorovka: ~850 Soviet tanks vs ~600 German in an area smaller than a square mile)
Kursk – the definite turning point
At Kursk, Wehrmacht lost over half of her armoured forces
This was a loss that Germany could not recover from, especially with Allied bombing campaign hindering production at home
This meant that the initiative was permantly shifted to the Soviet side
Soviet losses were still high but replaceable
Bagration 1944
STAVKA and Stalin both agreed – a general offensive would not work, even with clear numerical advantage
Instead a series of offensives were planned, from Finland to Romania
The early successes drew German troops away from the center, allowing the main Soviet thrust to achieve a breakthrough
This campaign resembled strongly the kind of operation that Tukhachvesky had envisioned
In little over a week, Heeresgruppe Mitte was no more, the way was clear for Soviet recovery of all lost land
What did Bagration achieve?
It showed that Red Army had reached parity and, in some cases, superiority, to the Wehrmacht
Red Army had more men, more tanks, more guns than Germans and it used them professionally in a way that made great successess possible
Finland was knocked out of war, Romania was threatened, war would clearly end in Soviet victory
For the first time, German losses were significantly higher than Soviet losses
Race to Berlin 1945
While fighting still raged in the Baltics, in Hungary and parts of south Germany, Stalin focused on Berlin – the main prize of the war
Western Allies were making progress, entering German territory from west
Over 6 million Soviet troops faced less than 2 million Axis troops in January 1945
Zhukov and Konev raced towards Berlin with sometimes tragic consequences as Soviet troops fired upon each other in confusion
Victory at all costs
Soviet losses in WW2 were horrendous, easily higher than any other participant, whether in total numbers or percentile
Red Army improved drastically during the war period though almost all of these reforms had been planned before the war
From badly led peasant army to a highly competent, if rigid, mechanized force – larger and better equipped than the US Army of that time
Historiography of Red Army
Cold War era view
Germany lost the war through Hitler’s ineptitude, USSR did not win the war
Mediterranean and west-European theaters were just as, if not even more important, than the Eastern Front
Lend-Lease saved the Soviet Union
Red Army won through numbers, remaining a bumbling giant
This is simply wrong and a product of the Cold War and the inability of historians to access Soviet sources
Revisionist view (Suvorov)
Germany pre-empted a Soviet invasion of Europe
Red Army was planning an attack; without Germany an Iron Curtain could have descended much further west
This is also wrong
Red Army plans emphasized strong counter-attacks but only as a reaction to enemy attack
Communist era Soviet view
Red Army won through the leadership of Stalin / Communist Party
Lend-Lease was insignificant
Capitalist powers were encouraging war between Germany and USSR
This is also wrong and a propagandistic view
Truth can be found somewhere between these lines
Red Army was preparing to attack Germany, but as a reaction to German hostility at some point, there were no plans for attack in 1941
Stalin and the Communist Party were important in ensuring the continued fight but it was the people who carried the burden and sacrificed so much for victory
Lend-Lease was important but only from late 1942, helping USSR industry to focus in tanks and planes
While 80% of German losses came from the East Front, the other theaters siphoned significant German forces, helping the Soviet war effort
Without the totalitarian state machinery, it is entirely possible that USSR would have followed the example of France and surrendered in December 1941
Without the reforms of the Red Army, it is possible that the Soviets could not have reached Berlin in 1945
East Front was the largest and most important part of the European War but the other fronts played their own, significant, parts
The ghost of the Great Patriotic War haunted USSR
Massive stockpiling of war equipment, greatly hindering the civilian economy
USSR never really recovered from the war
Still, if WW3 had broken out in the 1950’s or 1960’s, Red Army was superior to all NATO forces of that period. This only changed in the 1980’s
Only the threat of nuclear retaliation from USA could have kept the Red Army in check in a war
While conventional Soviet forces were superior to NATO forces upto mid-1980’s, USSR never had the lead in the nuclear race
The technical advances in American equipment during 1980’s, coupled with the worsening economic situation of the Soviet Union led to the decline of the Red Army
After 1991, Red Army practically crumbled
In essence, the gigantic army was a paralyzing chain over the Soviet economy – sucking the lifeblood out of it
Okay, so. T-34/85 was the mainstay of the Red Army in 1945, augmented by large numbers of heavy tanks like KV-1, IS-2 and IS-3. The T-44 was coming nicely along and production would not have been stopped if a war with the Western Allies had erupted and it pretty much outclassed the American Pershing as well. To make things worse, the Pershing was only available in very limited numbers by the end of the operations at ETO. Soviet armoured formations were also amply equipped with self-propelled guns, tank destroyers and tracked/armoured artillery - for example the SU and ISU series, plus it had more artillery, including devastating rocket artillery. While the Americans had M36 Jackson - again in small numbers and the M7 Priest, the numbers just were not in their favour.
Operationally, Americans were not really using Blitzkrieg tactics, whereas Red Army commanders had, by 1945, completely embraced this practice. American standard operating procedure was to stop, when encountering resistance, call in air- and artillery support, then use tanks as direct-fire support as infantry breached enemy positions. There was nothing wrong with this operational method but it made for slow going and was not conducive for rapid breakthroughs - as evidenced by the very small number of American and British "dashes" in ETO during 1943, 1944 and 1945. British were not any better as can be easily discovered by reading about the British 8th Army campaign through Libya. Neither Montgomery nor Bradley could be compared to Guderian, Rommel or Manstein. But Zhukov and Konev, to name two examples, could. There are no Allied versions of Operation Bagration, for example. While terrain in Italy and some parts of France definitely hampered the Allies, it's not a proper excuse for this difference - Red Army had more German formations arrayed against it and there are just as many rivers to cross in East-Europe as there are in West-Europe.
Cutting off Lend-Lease wasn't going to crumble the Soviet economy either, as they had recouped all losses of 1941 by 1944, if not earlier and were by late 1944 and early 1945 just "shopping" useful future stuff from Britain and America.
Remember, when Hitler committed suicide, USA did not have an atom bomb, yet. The production was fairly slow as well and the bombs were ill-suited for operational or tactical use - they were only useful as a way to destroy a city. American B-29 bombers could not reach Moscow, though they might have been able to reach Leningrad. But the heart of the Soviet industry, safely behind the Ural mountains could not be reached from Europe or from India or from Pacific bases. Allied naval power would have been entirely useless as well, as Soviet Union was entirely self-sufficient. While an embargo could slowly strangle Germany, it would not work against the USSR.
Soviet Union was facing problems as well - there was shortage of food and the endless manpower reserves were beginning to run low - but Allies vs USSR clash in Europe would not have lasted long enough for either one to become critical and even if had lasted long enough, USSR had the mechanisms in place to employ vast numbers of slave labour to fix both issues. Not to mention that Stalin wouldn't have blinked an eye before starving all of European civilian population if it meant victory against the Allies. Would Britain and America kept the war going even after the Red Banner would've been hoisted at Brest and Cherbourg? I doubt it, especially as the American public was really becoming sick and tired of the war by 1945 - as can be seen from the flagging sales of war bonds and the public opinion surveys conducted by the Roosevelt/Truman administrations.
After the disaster of 1941, commissars could no longer usurp the authority of the officers. They could only report back to Party/NVKD headquarters. Field commanders had exceptional leeway to pursue victory - Stalin did not meddle with STAVKA after 1942's disastrous Kiev counter-offensive, as he learned his lesson. Stalin only reigned in the popular senior officers and tightened Party control of the Red Army in 1945 AFTER the successful conclusion of WW2, both ETO and PTO.
Did I miss anything?
Jhessail said:
Should we start to bring in Comets, Centurions and Super Pershings? As for Jacksons, US had quite significant numbers of Hellcats and Wolverines.
Jhessail said:
B-29 can reach Moscow from Britain, it can even reach it while evading mainland and turning half the way over Scandinavia, proceeding above Finland towards Moscow. Also, combat missions from Alexandria should be able to reach Moscow as well. With full payload.
A typo. I meant IS-1 and IS-2. Hellcats and Wolverines were inadequate against most Soviet equipment by 1945 just like most models of Shermans were.
Any sort of bombing campaign would have required USAAF to penetrate the Soviet PVO in the first place and unlike Luftwaffe in 1944/45, it was quite strong. Casualties would have been much worse. B-29 operation range with a full payload was about 3,500 miles - but that is mostly useless information since what we really need is the combat radius - how far the planes could go with a full payload before they had to turn back without risking running out of fuel. For B-29, that was between 1,466 and 1,843 miles, depending on the payload.
Source: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-29_Superfortress_SAC_-_19_April_1950.pdf
From London to Moscow is 1,781 miles according to Google Maps. The USAAF 8th Air Army bases were not in London and they probably could not just fly a straight line. Flying over Scandinavia would make much more sense, from security point of view, but then they could only reach Leningrad. The distance from bases in southern Italy and Sicily is similar or even longer. It's a moot point in claiming that the USAAF could utilize French bases, as these would fall to the Soviets in short order and also desperately needed for fighters and attack planes, the only area where Western Allies had an edge over Soviets.
This isn't even taking into account that most B-29's were at the PTO since there their range was more necessary while ETO could still use B-17's, augmented by B-25's.
EDIT: no, it wasn't a typo. Damn you for making me doubt myself. IS-3 came into operational use in 1945 and saw battle during the Mantsurian campaign against the Japanese. Just like the T-44, it would have been wielded against the Western Allies if "Unthinkable" had happened.
EDIT2: And if you think that RAF and USAAF could devastate Baku from airfields in Persia, the Soviets had already occupied northern-Persia by 1945 and their forces there outnumbered British and American forces in the south. It wouldn't take longer than a month for the Red Army to reach the Persian Gulf.
EDIT3: Most people don't know this, because it is overshadowed by the Allied bombing campaign, but the Soviets had their own long-range bomber force, Aviatsija Dalnego Dejstvija (ADD). While it paled in comparison to the 8th Army and Bomber Command, it was an effective for logistical bombing of Allied rear areas in Europe and could, eventually, cause much more damage to Britain than Luftwaffe ever did. Of course, only if the Red Air Force eventually beats the RAF and USAAF.
Any sort of bombing campaign would have required USAAF to penetrate the Soviet PVO in the first place and unlike Luftwaffe in 1944/45, it was quite strong. Casualties would have been much worse. B-29 operation range with a full payload was about 3,500 miles - but that is mostly useless information since what we really need is the combat radius - how far the planes could go with a full payload before they had to turn back without risking running out of fuel. For B-29, that was between 1,466 and 1,843 miles, depending on the payload.
Source: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-29_Superfortress_SAC_-_19_April_1950.pdf
From London to Moscow is 1,781 miles according to Google Maps. The USAAF 8th Air Army bases were not in London and they probably could not just fly a straight line. Flying over Scandinavia would make much more sense, from security point of view, but then they could only reach Leningrad. The distance from bases in southern Italy and Sicily is similar or even longer. It's a moot point in claiming that the USAAF could utilize French bases, as these would fall to the Soviets in short order and also desperately needed for fighters and attack planes, the only area where Western Allies had an edge over Soviets.
This isn't even taking into account that most B-29's were at the PTO since there their range was more necessary while ETO could still use B-17's, augmented by B-25's.
EDIT: no, it wasn't a typo. Damn you for making me doubt myself. IS-3 came into operational use in 1945 and saw battle during the Mantsurian campaign against the Japanese. Just like the T-44, it would have been wielded against the Western Allies if "Unthinkable" had happened.
EDIT2: And if you think that RAF and USAAF could devastate Baku from airfields in Persia, the Soviets had already occupied northern-Persia by 1945 and their forces there outnumbered British and American forces in the south. It wouldn't take longer than a month for the Red Army to reach the Persian Gulf.
EDIT3: Most people don't know this, because it is overshadowed by the Allied bombing campaign, but the Soviets had their own long-range bomber force, Aviatsija Dalnego Dejstvija (ADD). While it paled in comparison to the 8th Army and Bomber Command, it was an effective for logistical bombing of Allied rear areas in Europe and could, eventually, cause much more damage to Britain than Luftwaffe ever did. Of course, only if the Red Air Force eventually beats the RAF and USAAF.
Jhessail said:It keeps the so-called conversation lively. Besides, your avatar is what you want to tell the forum about yourself. Yours is a 70's porn moustache wielding Günther-wannabe. Tells me quite a bit about your sense of humour and personality.
Lol wat. No wait, this makes sense, coming from you. You already think that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, so thinking that French, British and other Europeans are FUNDAMENTALLY different to Americans seems logical. To you.
Which is just further proof that you are not only clueless but possibly bat-**** insane.
That's just as much true as the claim that Egyptian civilization was built on slave labour. Yes, it happened but it's not all that happened or anywhere near the entire picture.
And now there are no such coheision problems, except when soldiers bring racism with them from the civilian world and even then, the military often weanes them off of it. Or are you saying that the modern US Military is performing poorly compared to the pre-1950 segregated military?
Newsflash, dip****. They had both mixed-gender and mono-gender units. Which you should know since you're just copypasting Wikipedia - you haven't even read the book in question! What a moron! But don't worry, I'll look it up in a library during the winter, read and then write some quotes here that will give a better, full picture of the issue, than your copy-pasting of a half-a-paragraph from the Wikipedia article under the topic "Challenges faced".
You idiot!
Considering your level of knowledge is based on Wikipedia and Hollywood movies, I'll kindly educate you by stating that it was the Red Army that crushed the Nazi-Germany and it was the Red Army that crushed the Japanese Army of Kwantung, overrunning Mongolia and Korea, causing the Americans to rush half-cocked to meet them as their rapid advance took them by surprise. You think Battle of the Bulge or conquest of Sicily or Falaise Pocket or Operation Market-Garden were big, major battles? They were nothing compared to Battle of Kursk or conquest of Ukraine or Korsun Pocket or Operation Bagration. The Red Army in 1945 was superior to both US and British armies by numbers, by operational skill, by doctrine and by equipment quality - and only their edge in air could have prevented the Bear from reaching the Atlantic if Stalin so had wished. So stop slandering the Red Army when you have zero ******** clue about their real capabilities. As if no other nation or military ever did stupid **** in an emergency.
Sorry Günther, you're the one doing all the crawling here, ignorant clueless moron as you are. The hole of shame beckons, Günther! Heed its call!
Is it just me who thinks Jhessail is just to abit over aggresive ?.
Anyways to my opinion i think its good that they are deploying reason a better military. You can compare it to mb warband
to make a good army you need Huscarls for infantry, Swadian cav,Bowmen Rhodok. t make it comparable. Men can do some work and women the rest.
Politically I don't think the USSR could have lasted much longer in a war against the Western Allies. America had the manpower to keep up the fight for quite a while, and while I will agree that the Soviets had superior equipment in many areas, mainly tanks, continuing the war would have, in my opinion, put so much more stress on the USSR that it wouldn't take long before someone realized Stalin was doing the same thing that Tsar Nicholas II was doing in World War I. In a war that would no longer be for the reasons of self-preservation that the "Great Patriotic War" was, I suspect morale would become a major issue once again.
Not to mention the sheer amount of manpower lost by the Soviets would eventually begin to take its toll on the country, one way or another. The importance of the nuclear bomb cannot be underestimated either, because even if the bombers couldn't have theoretically reached Moscow, a terror campaign against the most readily available Soviet cities probably wouldn't have been out of the question.
Not to mention the sheer amount of manpower lost by the Soviets would eventually begin to take its toll on the country, one way or another. The importance of the nuclear bomb cannot be underestimated either, because even if the bombers couldn't have theoretically reached Moscow, a terror campaign against the most readily available Soviet cities probably wouldn't have been out of the question.
