Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mick in England View Post

    I say again, Bradley fouled up unless you agree with his decision to land troops on Omaha without tank support? No wonder Tom Hanks got the shakes..
    Naturally it's been largely hushed up ever since but the truth will out..
    "V Corps's plan for Omaha eschewed tactical subtleties, the use of British specialized armour.."
    http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/lewis_omaha.html
    Well I have no issue with that. But the idea that you could have done a better job than Bradley put in his exact same position? This I find hard to stomach.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GSpot View Post
      I think many military minds of the past, and quite certainly some of the present, would suggest that one needs to apply the violence judiciously when occupying a hostile nation.
      You've got it all screwed up. Occupying implies you've won the war already. When fighting a war, the application of violence must tbe total.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GSpot View Post
        I think many military minds of the past, and quite certainly some of the present, would suggest that one needs to apply the violence judiciously when occupying a hostile nation. Killing the civilians all over the place isnt going to make things easier in the long run, not in a world where a single man or device can so easily take the lives of so many others.
        By that rationale the Japanese should be trying to sneak a nuke into the US and detonate it.

        But....apparently the opposite is true, as they TO THIS DAY are extremely anti-nuke, and anti-offensive military minded.

        So apparently, killing them till they scream uncle does work, and works well.

        Also, in the long run, killing all the native americans(ok, most of them) very much made things easier for the US, cause prior to that, they did not seem to want to cooperate with our theft of their lands at all(imagine that, lol).

        Comment


        • "We're taking sniper fire from the minaret" yelled a squad leader to the camera in the battle of Fallujah.
          There were US tanks idling nearby without firing but it beats me why they weren't allowed by the brass to bring down the minaret..
          *****-footing costs lives, won't the brass ever learn?..
          As a PC wargame champ, my motto is "Never fear to use overkill, let the fear be your enemies".
          Works for me ;)

          EDIT - Why have asterisks appeared above?

          Comment


          • Well weve certainly occupied Iraq but I dont feel like weve won. So were fighting, but perhaps something thats not a war. If i do understand correctly, war and occupation are different concepts so perhaps they need different rules. Judicious application of force combined with psychological war? Propoganda and bullets perhaps.
            And I'll say that I do again reject some kind of kid-gloves approach to an actual war in which two actual armies are fighting.


            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            My advice here is to grow a thick backbone because the military people here will only explain so much and expects you to fill in the gaps through your own research.
            Advice understood and welcomed. On my way.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
              I see. Well since it's midnight and I'm tired, I don't want to get into a "race war" with you. I will admit, I'm surprised and ashamed at your comments about the Japanese people, for the majority of "them" consider Americans their friends. I suppose you don't know many Japanese.

              I will respond later, and do my best to be respectful. That's the most I can offer at this moment.
              I dont give a damn what you think about my views of the Japanese.

              They still have never admitted, let alone appologized, for the crimes against humanity they perpetrated, up to and including canabilization of US service personnel.

              The Japanese can rot in hell as far as i'm concerned.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
                By that rationale the Japanese should be trying to sneak a nuke into the US and detonate it.

                But....apparently the opposite is true, as they TO THIS DAY are extremely anti-nuke, and anti-offensive military minded.

                So apparently, killing them till they scream uncle does work, and works well.
                I guess I misunderstood the gist of your statements up until now. We didnt slaughter the Japanese until there were too few of them left to put up a fight, we did so until they were no longer willing to fight. I.E., we stopped killing them once we occuppied their country and started trying to make friendly, something that benefited us in the long run. I agree entirely with that policy.

                Comment


                • GSPOT to Mick - But the idea that you could have done a better job than Bradley put in his exact same position? This I find hard to stomach.
                  -------------------------------------



                  You gotta be shi****g me boy :)
                  Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz or even Mary Poppins could have done a better job than Bradley :)

                  Comment


                  • You mean like the Canadians at Dieppe?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mick in England View Post
                      You gotta be shi****g me boy :)
                      Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz or even Mary Poppins could have done a better job than Bradley :)
                      Yeah man, but Poppins could fly with that badass umbrella. Not a fair comparison.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GSpot View Post
                        I guess I misunderstood the gist of your statements up until now. We didnt slaughter the Japanese until there were too few of them left to put up a fight, we did so until they were no longer willing to fight. I.E., we stopped killing them once we occuppied their country and started trying to make friendly, something that benefited us in the long run. I agree entirely with that policy.
                        If they had not been prepared to stop fighting, then we'd have killed them until they simply couldnt fight anymore.

                        THAT, friends, is the proper application of military force.

                        We truly applied this principle to the Germans(as did the Reds), however, we did let the Japanese somewhat off the hook, and allowed them to keep their murdering emporer, and spared a lot of their war criminals. To me, we eased off the gas pedal too soon WRT the Japanese.

                        They refuse to even acknowledge the full extent of their crimes, and indeed, they gloss over them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
                          Also, in the long run, killing all the native americans(ok, most of them) very much made things easier for the US, cause prior to that, they did not seem to want to cooperate with our theft of their lands at all(imagine that, lol).

                          The English who landed on Roanoke Island got on great with the Indians at first, trading axes, mirrors,knives, pots and pans, Dances with Wolves videos etc for food.
                          Then the Indians got too big for their boots and start pilfering from the colonists and planning to wipe them out. The last straw was when they stole a cup, so the English went ballistic and staged a pre-emptive strike on the local village with blunderbusses blazing, shooting up the place and cutting off the chiefs head.
                          Nobody betta pinch our cups, know what ahm a-sayin?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
                            They refuse to even acknowledge the full extent of their crimes, and indeed, they gloss over them.
                            I read that current Japanese textbooks dont even mention those atrocities. It is indeed a nasty revision of history.
                            All the same, I think its a small price to pay for ending the war earlier and sparing goodness knows how many American and Japanese lives. While Im sure the counterargument is that another war will result from our weak-willed resolution of the conflict, I guess only time will tell.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mick in England View Post
                              You gotta be shi****g me boy :)
                              Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz or even Mary Poppins could have done a better job than Bradley :)
                              And yet, Bradley did more without armour than Montgomery did with armour. Bradley screwed up with the tanks but the measure of a good army is not when things go right but when things go wrong. Bradley recovered and attacked. Montgomery stalled.

                              Sorry, this doesn't bold well that you know more than us.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                Sorry, this doesn't bold well that you know more than us.
                                ----------------------------


                                I know absolutely zilch mate, that's why I simply quote from books, so take it up with the authors not me ;)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X