Kaiser we learned in history class that someone did successfully invade Britian once. A long time before WW2 of course. If only I could remember the details. I remember this much because our teacher was an old British lady and we used to tease her about how the Britians sucked at war. (Which They don't). But she used to get mad and spend the rest of the class explaining why Britian lost a couple of battles but always won the war or something.

General Paulus' army, once 330,000 troops strong, had been uterly liquidated... The comment on the snow killing many troops was true, but what about malaria and malnutrition killing many of the Japanese that the Americans and Australians would face ?

The Red Army encircled 91,000 German troops in Stalingrad in one swift manuver and picked them off, one unit at a time...And you should also keep in mind how long the Russian front was...And, If the Russians hadn't kept the Germans at bay, many German troops would be free to go to the Western Front and overrun them....As for someones comment that the T-34 was like the Tiger, Hmmm, check your' facts, The first time the Germans encountered it, It wiped out 5 panzers and took 1 hour to destroy on one occasion...

You are right trick, the romans invaded and took over England for centuries.. but we are talking waaaay back in time http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil.../Captblade.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kraut Killer:
I do think the British played a enormous role, although they did have misplaced trust in Monty, who all but wiped out the British 1st Airborne. Now, to the point at hand, the Russkies. They had only two things in their favor, numbers and winter. As I have come to understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, they also wasted conscripts, used them for clearing minefields and pointless rushes against the Krauts. The Russians didn't win because of skill, just numbers. The Krauts were better soldiers, and I have one figure to prove as such, Russkie dead: 6,115,000 wounded:14,012,000 Kraut dead : (est.)3,300,000 wounded : (est.) 4,605,000. This is from fighting on two fronts as well. This also proves someone's theory, I don't remember who, that the most killed isn't always the winning factor. AND FINALLY, the turning point of WWII was the opening of a second front, losing much needed men and material. Nooch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, Yet, again, I have to rest my case.

The Russians were the most disgraced army that Ive ever known.

Well, I have to say . I love that T-34 tank http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/wink.gif


------------------
http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil.../Captblade.jpg

is it true that the russians strapped bombs to the backs of dogs and trained them to go and run under german tanks ?

Dude figure it out, the russians only held there own ground. They never helped in liberating anywere else and while russia had a lot of man power they were poorly armed. The americans actually went out there and helped in liberating some other countrys, of course it did take pearl harbor to piss the americans off to war. If it werent for pearl harbor the US would of probably left england fight it off.

Polaris if this is true then forget about what I said about the Red Army.

OK here is my 99cents worth, and it ALL comes out of books and veteran's mouths:

First off, the T34: The T34 was THE MOST produced tank of all of ww2, and all time, to say that it was like the tiger in that they couldn't produce it is COMPLETLY FALSE! This is why Surplus T34/85s cost only $7000 strait from russia.

Second, Afrika: Germany was the second to last country to get involved in afrika, then came the US, germany got involved in afrika because their ally, Italy, was getting their ass kicked by england and the former french, who had been there all along. US troops were nothing but glorified reenforcements for the brits. To say that the US landings in Afrika changed the outcome is false, Italy and germany were lossing anyway because of dwindleing supplies. Dare I mention Kasserine Pass?

Third: By May 1943 the emergency food stores in england were down to THREE WEEKS. The only reason that American and British people there made it past that was because of increased ROYAL NAVY ESCORTING of canadian convoys. Again, minimal involvement by the US.

Fourth: The US wouldn't have been in the war with germany if it weren't for japan. And even after that the American Congress refused to declare war on germany. The only reason that the US got involved in Europe was because Germany lived up to it's alliance with japan and declared war on america. So, the US didn't even WANT to get involved.

Fifth: Russia took more German occupied land than all of the US, England, France, and Post 1943 Italy COMBINED.

SEVENTY-SEVEN PERCENT OF ALL ARMED ENGAGEMENTS IN WWII WERE BETWEEN THE GERMAN AND RUSSIAN FORCES!

So, in conclusion, all of you who say that the US was the main force in winning the war, go read a damn book that isn't writen by an american publishing house, and realize that there is more to WWII than what your granfather told you when you were three years old.

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

I'm not sure if that's true, but they did have their conscripts link arms and run through minefields to clear them. And the Americans wereand are a great army, anyone who thinks differently and then bitches about people not knowing their history should shut the fuck up and hit the fucking books. Fucking bitches.

------------------
I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me! WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME?

I'm not saying that the US wasn't a great boon to the allied war effort but there were armies out there that did much more in europe, remember, more than half of all american forces were commited to the Pacific.

Bürgen

is it true about those Russian kamakazi dogs ?

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET U FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! THANK YOU BURGEN! ILL DO ANYTHING U WANT... anything http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/wink.gif

LOl thanks for proving my point Burgen.. America shouldnt be so glorified the way they are in ww2.. Russia should

Polaris,

the reds did a lot of wierd and in-humane things. There are reports of that happening but not just with dogs, they would use members of Penal battalions, prisoners in the service of the military, as walking bombs, by simply straping a satchel charge on an telling them that they can be shot now, or take out some germans with them. In the later stage of the war, it was not uncommon for russian tankers to tie/chain german civilian prisoners to their tanks, so that german soldiers would be inclined to not shoot! And yet there have never been any war crimes filed against the red army.

------------------
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bi...rop-var-15.jpg
"Victory at any Price!"

SS-Panzergrenadier

[This message has been edited by Bürgen (edited July 25, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polaris:
is it true that the russians strapped bombs to the backs of dogs and trained them to go and run under german tanks ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I have a book that talks about it. They put explosives with a wooden stick facing straight up on the dogs back, the dogs ran under the enemy tanks (that's how it was planned anyway) and the stick was pushed back, causing the bomb to explode and destroy the tank. However, most of the time during actual combat the dogs ran away, or ran under their OWN tanks (that they were fimiliar with from training). A very poor idea to say the least.

I don't think Blade ans I were talking about the war in Europe Burgen. We were talking about the war in general. Who else fought the Japs in the Pacific? I don't care what the statistics say, it is just a strong opinion that the US did have a more important role then the Russians throughout the whole WORLD WAR, not Russian vs. Germany war. Atleast Russia was resourceful. walking bombs what a great yet sick idea.