Jump to content
bornontheblue

Land war in Europe game thread! (with poll)

US Response to Russian Invasion of Ukraine  

65 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the US response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine be?

    • Nuke 'em
    • Full conventional military response, troops, tanks, fighters etc take part in defense of Ukraine
    • Air/missile strikes against key Russian military targets
    • Economic embargo of Russia
    • Economic sanctions against Russia
    • Cutoff diplomatic relations with Russia
    • Nothing.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Old blood and guts saw it differently. That’s partly why we’re doves and he’s old blood and guts.

A.  A War with the USSR would have not gone over well with the folks back home.

B.  I have watched a read predictions of an Ally v SovArmy War. Not pretty. Initially they would have pushed the Allies back into Western France. Our Air Superiority and shortening of our supply lines would have pushed the SovArmy back to the Rhine and it would have required us using a Nuke or two in their rear supply logistics area and Kiev to push them further back into Poland. A negotiated Peace might have brought Poland into the NATO block, but not the rest of Eastern Europe.

C.   Truman was right. It would have been a costly war in terms of lives, mil and civ. It would have devestated most of Western Europe two more times. It probably would have bankrupted the US economy. We were struggling to sell enough War Bonds in late 44 and 45 to keep up with the demand for more war material.

 

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Yeah because if history shows one thing it’s that it’s a mistake to invade Russia. Better generals than Patton have made that mistake. 

I'm going to disagree here.

Napoleon was not necessarily a better General, he was deluded into believing that if they captured the Capital, it would be checkmate. The Nazis Generals, fearful of repeating Napoleons mistakes were all well versed in his Military Campaign. They did not want to repeat his mistakes. The lesson they failed to learn from Napoleon was that the Russians were more than willing to abandon their Capital in order to over extend the invaders supply lines. 

The RussComms had already started the process of abandoning Moscow and had moved much of their essential War production further East to the Urals. Part of the reason for protecting Moscow was to buy more time to move more Industry East. The Generals believed, like Nappy, they could capture the Capital and win the War. 

Hitler was right on this one. It was far more practical to capture the Industrial Centers, food supplies, and Comm Centers than to try to take Leningrad and Moscow street by street. He forgot that thinking in Stalingrad.

So, no they weren't better Generals. Just the fact they believed they could conquer the vast expanses of Russia shows me they were not of sound mind.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happycamper said:

Eh winter was fine! It was the mud season, spring and fall. and also the lack of oil. and the dedicated partisans. and the demographic advantage. 

Dust.

The Panzer Divisions lost more panzers to engine failure caused by the summer dust than they did in combat. From late July on the  Panzer Commanders were begging OKW for better Air/Oil Filters and Engines.

  • Like 2

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaztecs said:

I'm going to disagree here.

Napoleon was not necessarily a better General, he was deluded into believing that if they captured the Capital, it would be checkmate. The Nazis Generals, fearful of repeating Napoleons mistakes were all well versed in his Military Campaign. They did not want to repeat his mistakes. The lesson they failed to learn from Napoleon was that the Russians were more than willing to abandon their Capital in order to over extend the invaders supply lines. 

The RussComms had already started the process of abandoning Moscow and had moved much of their essential War production further East to the Urals. Part of the reason for protecting Moscow was to buy more time to move more Industry East. The Generals believed, like Nappy, they could capture the Capital and win the War. 

Hitler was right on this one. It was far more practical to capture the Industrial Centers, food supplies, and Comm Centers than to try to take Leningrad and Moscow street by street. He forgot that thinking in Stalingrad.

So, no they weren't better Generals. Just the fact they believed they could conquer the vast expanses of Russia shows me they were not of sound mind.

The argument for capturing Moscow was its centrality in the Soviet rail system. It certainly would have hampered their supply lines quite a bit. Plus the symbolic victory of doing so might have affected an already unbalanced Stalin in unpredictable ways. Like offing Zhukov or something. 

It seems unlikely that the Germans would actually be able to capture and hold it for long though. The fact that they even got within sight of it was a combination of luck, catastrophic Soviet unpreparedness, and Stalin purging all of the officer corps.

Barbarossa was a failed plan even under the best conditions, which the Wehrmacht damn near got.  It was logistically impossible to conquer a continent on that kind of timetable and would have required even more luck and shit going right for the Nazis than had already happened. 

Generally, invading Russia is a stupid +++++ing idea. The Allies would also have faced certain failure and defeat circa 1945, sans dropping nukes.

  • Like 2
On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaztecs said:

I'm going to disagree here.

Napoleon was not necessarily a better General, he was deluded into believing that if they captured the Capital, it would be checkmate. The Nazis Generals, fearful of repeating Napoleons mistakes were all well versed in his Military Campaign. They did not want to repeat his mistakes. The lesson they failed to learn from Napoleon was that the Russians were more than willing to abandon their Capital in order to over extend the invaders supply lines. 

The RussComms had already started the process of abandoning Moscow and had moved much of their essential War production further East to the Urals. Part of the reason for protecting Moscow was to buy more time to move more Industry East. The Generals believed, like Nappy, they could capture the Capital and win the War. 

Hitler was right on this one. It was far more practical to capture the Industrial Centers, food supplies, and Comm Centers than to try to take Leningrad and Moscow street by street. He forgot that thinking in Stalingrad.

So, no they weren't better Generals. Just the fact they believed they could conquer the vast expanses of Russia shows me they were not of sound mind.

I’m quite comfortable comparing Napoleon’s, or even Charles XII of Sweden’s, military successes with those of Patton. And remember that the starting point of the Patton discussion was his advocacy of continuing the war against those same Russians, so he was also of unsound mind. 

  • Like 1

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I’m quite comfortable comparing Napoleon’s, or even Charles XII of Sweden’s, military successes with those of Patton. And remember that the starting point of the Patton discussion was his advocacy of continuing the war against those same Russians, so he was also of unsound mind. 

Not to mention that Patton was at best an average tactician.  Where he excelled as a general was his understanding of logistics and increasing battlefield morale with the troops, not his actual battlefield acumen.  He compensated for his lack of tactical brilliance with sheer aggression, which got him in trouble several times in Africa, Sicily and in Lorain.  I always find it interesting that a lot of arm chair historians always give him the credit of one of America's best generals, when there were so many others even in WW2 that were far better, but didn't milk publicity like Patton did. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, youngredbullfan said:

The argument for capturing Moscow was its centrality in the Soviet rail system. It certainly would have hampered their supply lines quite a bit. Plus the symbolic victory of doing so might have affected an already unbalanced Stalin in unpredictable ways. Like offing Zhukov or something. 

It seems unlikely that the Germans would actually be able to capture and hold it for long though. The fact that they even got within sight of it was a combination of luck, catastrophic Soviet unpreparedness, and Stalin purging all of the officer corps.

Barbarossa was a failed plan even under the best conditions, which the Wehrmacht damn near got.  It was logistically impossible to conquer a continent on that kind of timetable and would have required even more luck and shit going right for the Nazis than had already happened. 

Generally, invading Russia is a stupid +++++ing idea. The Allies would also have faced certain failure and defeat circa 1945, sans dropping nukes.

I gotta disagree here. 

I don't think that the allies' failure would have been so catastrophic. I don't think we could have taken or occupied Russia. But... I also don't think we would have had the floor wiped. Russia didn't have reserves. We did, and we were capable of attacking them on multiple fronts, with internal supply lines, and air superiority. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wish I had an orgy gun boy voted to embargo the commies. 
 

is he feeling well.
 

Hey orygun boy I’m hiring someone to scrub my toilets. You seem well qualified to clean up my shit. 

  • OG R-Tard 1

The Masters 5k road race All American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 12:49 PM, AztecAlien said:

Interesting. 🤔 If you have not had the chance to watch the movie Enemy At The Gates with Jude Law and Ed Harris, I recommend it. The movie is about two snipers trying to outwit each other. But there's a pretty accurate description of how the Germans were just slaughtering the out gunned Russians in the beginning. Pretty crazy how the Russians overcame being in a giant hole. Literally.    

Haven't seen the flick so maybe it's covered there but Stalin knew his troops were so out-gunned by the Wehrmacht that the ordered Red Army machine gunners to follow them into battle and shoot any on the spot if they tried to desert. Reports were that in some cases a second wave of troops was ordered into battle whose only weapon was a knife and they were told to pick up the rifle from fallen comrades from the first wave. The giant hole was crawled out of to a large extent through holding back he new T-34 tank from the great majority of mechanized units early so as to deploy them en masse against unprepared German forces later. Also, thankfully for Stalin, he didn't have Zhukov murdered when he cleaned house of hundreds of generals prior to the invasion and Zhukov proved to be as great a tactician as exemplified the German army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

Not to mention that Patton was at best an average tactician.  Where he excelled as a general was his understanding of logistics and increasing battlefield morale with the troops, not his actual battlefield acumen.  He compensated for his lack of tactical brilliance with sheer aggression, which got him in trouble several times in Africa, Sicily and in Lorain.  I always find it interesting that a lot of arm chair historians always give him the credit of one of America's best generals, when there were so many others even in WW2 that were far better, but didn't milk publicity like Patton did. 

We did a derby awhile ago voting for America's best General/Admiral but I can't find the thread now.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mugtang said:

We did a derby awhile ago voting for America's best General/Admiral but I can't find the thread now.

Tough derby. I can't even think of who would be the best if you threw in admirals. And if you included all time frames it would be hard to compare. You'd almost have to break it down by conflict era. WW2 generals/admirals shouldn't be compared to any prior just based on the technological advancements made after WW1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Haven't seen the flick so maybe it's covered there but Stalin knew his troops were so out-gunned by the Wehrmacht that the ordered Red Army machine gunners to follow them into battle and shoot any on the spot if they tried to desert. Reports were that in some cases a second wave of troops was ordered into battle whose only weapon was a knife and they were told to pick up the rifle from fallen comrades from the first wave. The giant hole was crawled out of to a large extent through holding back he new T-34 tank from the great majority of mechanized units early so as to deploy them en masse against unprepared German forces later. Also, thankfully for Stalin, he didn't have Zhukov murdered when he cleaned house of hundreds of generals prior to the invasion and Zhukov proved to be as great a tactician as exemplified the German army.

You really need to watch it. The first part of the movie is pretty much spot on as to what you described.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 2:18 PM, mugtang said:

We did a derby awhile ago voting for America's best General/Admiral but I can't find the thread now.

Patton beat Grant. It was a travesty.

  • Sad 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 6:34 AM, HR_Poke said:

Not to mention that Patton was at best an average tactician.  Where he excelled as a general was his understanding of logistics and increasing battlefield morale with the troops, not his actual battlefield acumen.  He compensated for his lack of tactical brilliance with sheer aggression, which got him in trouble several times in Africa, Sicily and in Lorain.  I always find it interesting that a lot of arm chair historians always give him the credit of one of America's best generals, when there were so many others even in WW2 that were far better, but didn't milk publicity like Patton did. 

Patton had the best movie.

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...