Excuse my asking but how many should they have lost exactly? :hmmm:


.

I did say that the Japanese won very many battles merely that they did make a notable change in their tactics perhaps if they had done this change much sooner it could have made a difference well not really they did have rather poor merchant shipping indeed and it only got better thanks to US Navy subs and air power.


I think what let the Axis side down was much more their high leadership they where idiots and forced bad decisions that their troops had to obey.The German solider,airman,sailor was very professional even at the very end of the war for the most part.

Take Stalingrad the original plan was to take the oil fields but Hitler had to take Stalingrad so he split an army to do so this was a stupid idea and cost them.You should never split your forces like this go after one target destroy it then go after the next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif
oops. that was all military personnel of all countries in the war. still the russians shoudntve lost that many.


Excuse my asking but how many should they have lost exactly? :hmmm:

Slaps knee,


Anyway enough of this let us all hear the ever so wise CaptainMattJ. He seems to be the smartest guy on subsim let us stop with our know nothingness and let him enlighten us all as to what went down in WWII.

Tactics wins battles. Logistics wins wars.

More like both Tactics and logistics win wars without one you cant have the other really.Both are of equal importance.

And the navy does the party afterwards! :D



.

Less. they lead massive suicidal charges against battle hardened germans. they shot whoever came back, they got the **** kicked out of them. 10 million? the U.S lost only 416,000 men, fighting 2 wars on land sea and air. Russians lost 10 million, and they had MUCH better tanks. as for how many they SHOULDVE i dont know. they just shouldve lost less.

Why would you say that. Because i gave my opinion on what wouldve happened if the U.S hadnt entered the war? I never once said you were wrong, and i never once said your speculations dont matter. im not showing off, im not acting like i know all, and im not being rude. i am highly interested in WWII, and i believe that theres truth behind some of what ive said.

"Quantity has a quality all of it's own."

Did anyone figure out if it was Stalin or Zhukov that coined that one? It sums up the Soviet attitude to war very well.

I'm not overly familier with what happened on the Eastern Front in WW1, but remember the Schleiffen plan? The Germans wanted to knock out France before Russia could fully mobilise it's armies. The Kaiser's Staffers obviously appreciated that the Russians would have been a "bear" to deal with.

Going back to the PTO, have a check of this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rising-Sun-V...2427661&sr=8-2

It does have a number of duff scenarios, but the first chapter deals with an alternate joint German-Japanese attack on the USSR. It also has a chapter dealing with the possiblity of a succesful Japanese invasion of India.

Mike.:)

Because you are not giving a fair comparison.The Soviet military and the US military where in vastly different situations during WWII. The only thing in common that we had was that both where largely unprepared for war when it came.

And I am just shinning you on a little you don't have to get so antsy.This is subsim after all dont take anything someone says to you on here too seriously.
I call things as they are if i thought you where being rude I'd say so.

@@MGR1:
I believe that it was Lenin who coined this term not 100% sure though.
Needles to say though they made a lot of gear just look at the T-34 they where like ants it did not matter how good a Tiger of Panther was because they simply got overwhelmed.
Combine that with the fact that Russian soldiers like get up close and personal in combat and you have a nasty enemy one that should never be underestimated.They just have a different philosophy towards warfare than most Western European countries do and their massive population allows for that style of fighting.

I'll only say this:
1. It sometimes comes down to one thing. Hold the line at all cost. The key word here is "all cost".
2.The US didn't have to fight for and on its homeland and never had itsindustrial base threatened.


.

For winning wars, logistics trumps tactics, IMHO.

An army with adequate tactics, and superior logistics can beat the tar out of one with superior tactics and inferior logistics.

It's important to note that historically, there is evidence of many excellent (tactically) armies with terrible logistical support, and they always lose. Any army with excellent logistics seems to invariably have at the very least adequate tactics. I don't think you can be disciplined enough to have excellent logistics without having basic competence in the other military skills.

Tactics in effect requires a handful of bright minds at the top, logistics is systemic, you either have it or you don't. So you can drop an Alexander in a **** army, and win a battle, but you'd be hard pressed to win any war with crappy logistics.

As an excercise, name a war won by a force with great tactics, but crappy logistics.

The russians lost many men because they didn't care about their men. Stalin murdered ~50 million of his own people, throwing away a few million troops? Meh.

The US occupies a unique geopolitical position in the world, which is why we are a super power. We have direct access to the ATO and PTO, but are isolated from foes by those same oceans. So no, we didn't have to defend the US directly because no one on earth had the capability to do so at that time (or now, for that matter).

The japanese never really learned amphibious landing techniques (they landed almost always on unoccupied beaches, and even with gross superiority on Wake, facing largely civilian opposition, they nearly lost). The Germans alsoi had no such capabilty, and didn't even have a basic understanding of it---they thought in 1944 that d-day would happen at a dawn high tide, so they discounted the real day (dawn LOW tide). This is proof they had no idea in the world how to invade by sea (land at high tide and your landing craft are stranded as the tide drops). This is why the notion of Sea Lion as a serious threat is so absurd. They didn't have 2 clues to rub together.

I know.
It boggles the mind when one realises that the bulk of the Wermacht was actually foot borne (with horse drawn artillery).
Most of them marched the 1000 miles to Moscow/Stalingrad/Leningrad.
The fully mechanised Panzer divisions that got all the press made up a small percentage of the overall force.

"The US occupies a unique geopolitical position in the world, which is why we are a super power. We have direct access to the ATO and PTO, but are isolated from foes by those same oceans. So no, we didn't have to defend the US directly because no one on earth had the capability to do so at that time (or now, for that matter)."


Indeed very true well said.

Very true that we have a very strategical point in the world. and even though the russians were getting attacked on their own soil, with a "surprise" attack, they still shouldnt have lost so many men.