Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 49 of 49

Thread: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    against the only italians on the Middle East
    So Operation Compass December 1940 - February 1941 in which Britain destroyed the Italian Tenth Army which had a numerical advantage over Britain of about 5:1 and where Britain took upwards of 120,000 Italian prisoners with many deaths and injuries on both sides, while nobody else was fighting Italy or Germany, doesn't count?

    The people who fought, were wounded and died in that conflict would be offended that their efforts and sacrifices don't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Name it right. Untill the mid 1941 Britain had no serious combat fight with Heer. Even during the "battle of Britain" Luftwaffe losed less planes then within ONE first month of Barbarossa. Or i'm wrong?
    Barbarossa is irrelevant to the fact that only the British Commonwealth was fighting Germany, and Italy, up to mid-1941 when Barbarossa was launched (after the British Commonwealth had been fighting the Germans in North Africa, Greece and Crete). The USSR to that point had been happily carving up eastern Europe in deals with the Nazis, which gave the Soviets new territories without having to fight for them, never mind defending their homeland as the British had been since the outbreak of war and losing tens of thousands of civilians in Britain during that time.

    I'm not ignoring the vastly greater military and civilian losses under far, far worse conditions endured in the USSR after Barbarossa, but they are irrelevant the fact that only Britain and its Commonwealth fought the existing Axis (Germany and Italy) alone to mid-1941. And if Britain hadn't done that, and stopped Hitler executing his main aim of going eastwards until mid-1941, then the Soviets probably would have faced an earlier invasion with poorer prospects of defending the USSR successfully, or at least doing so at far greater cost than the awful, awful cost the Soviets endured after Barbarossa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    I've asked previously how much japanese were needed to conquer the entire Malay and Singapoor?
    British Commonwealth:Japan troops in Malaya were roughly 2:1.

    Factor in that British Commonwealth troops were in large numbers only base troops in their bases; were fragmented; were not always even adequately trained or led; lacked battle hardening of many opposing Japanese units; lacked mobility due to need to defend widely separated airfields; and had virtually no air cover or armour against Japan's great superiority in both areas, and the numerical superiority on paper of British Commonwealth troops becomes meaningless.

    The Japanese were better trained, better led, better planners, quicker to exploit battlefield advantages as they occurred, generally much better in battle tactics at all levels, better morale, more cohesive, and overall very much better than their British Commonwealth opponents. Add in Japan's great air and armour advantages and Japan was bound to win.

    Given those factors favouring Japan, you can't disparage the British Commonwealth forces for losing to Japan in Malaya while disparaging the British Commonwealth forces who performed at least as well as the Japanese when the British Commonwealth forces defeated the numerically much superior Italian forces in North Africa.

    Give credit where it is due, to the Japanese in Malaya (and everywhere else on land south of Vietnam up to January 1943) and to the British Commonwealth forces in North Africa up to mid-1941.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 07-05-2016 at 07:34 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    So Operation Compass December 1940 - February 1941 in which Britain destroyed the Italian Tenth Army which had a numerical advantage over Britain of about 5:1 and where Britain took upwards of 120,000 Italian prisoners with many deaths and injuries on both sides, while nobody else was fighting Italy or Germany, doesn't count?
    Actualy Italy doesn't count. Common, the itlians were absolut loosers in that war - they have losed each battle they took part in. So the italians don't count. Coz after Rommel has arrived in Africa- brits lost all territories they got from italians.
    The people who fought, were wounded and died in that conflict would be offended that their efforts and sacrifices don't matter.
    The people who fought and died in operation compass - died in vain. Coz their sacrificies did not bring military profit. So what for they died?For italian pows?
    Barbarossa is irrelevant to the fact that only the British Commonwealth was fighting Germany, and Italy, up to mid-1941 when Barbarossa was launched (after the British Commonwealth had been fighting the Germans in North Africa, Greece and Crete). The USSR to that point had been happily carving up eastern Europe in deals with the Nazis, which gave the Soviets new territories without having to fight for them, never mind defending their homeland as the British had been since the outbreak of war and losing tens of thousands of civilians in Britain during that time.
    You did not fight alone.The chinas fought JPA desperatively and years before you. Besides the Red Army also fought the potential nazis ally finland for territories that time,and that was a war with serous efforts and casualties ( in persentage) for both sides. And unlike Britain, which losed to Germany in all the fonts that time- we have partly succesed.
    I'm not ignoring the vastly greater military and civilian losses under far, far worse conditions endured in the USSR after Barbarossa, but they are irrelevant the fact that only Britain and its Commonwealth fought the existing Axis (Germany and Italy) alone to mid-1941. And if Britain hadn't done that, and stopped Hitler executing his main aim of going eastwards until mid-1941, then the Soviets probably would have faced an earlier invasion with poorer prospects of defending the USSR successfully, or at least doing so at far greater cost than the awful, awful cost the Soviets endured after Barbarossa.
    Hmm thats looks very controversal IMO. Coz in fact the Britain didn't just fight - they losed and got the Wermach a brillian "military training" compain with brits and france in 1940, thus to the mid-1941 it has been transformed to the undefeatable mashine, the best landing ( and air) army in the world that leaved no chanches to Red Army. I'm pretty sure if the war with Germany happend in 1939 - germans never moved into mainland so deep. Coz in 1939 the German army were just much like a parody at real army - but britain and france by their military incompetence ( and covardice) have finally made the Nazis such a strong.
    Factor in that British Commonwealth troops were in large numbers only base troops in their bases; were fragmented; were not always even adequately trained or led; lacked battle hardening of many opposing Japanese units; lacked mobility due to need to defend widely separated airfields; and had virtually no air cover or armour against Japan's great superiority in both areas, and the numerical superiority on paper of British Commonwealth troops becomes meaningless.

    The Japanese were better trained, better led, better planners, quicker to exploit battlefield advantages as they occurred, generally much better in battle tactics at all levels, better morale, more cohesive, and overall very much better than their British Commonwealth opponents. Add in Japan's great air and armour advantages and Japan was bound to win.
    And what prevented the brits to get an "adequate training or beeing defragmated"? The Stalin's purges among officers corp or fragile balls of top command?
    Given those factors favouring Japan, you can't disparage the British Commonwealth forces for losing to Japan in Malaya while disparaging the British Commonwealth forces who performed at least as well as the Japanese when the British Commonwealth forces defeated the numerically much superior Italian forces in North Africa.
    Oh again that italians as justification..I/m sure if the , dr Goebbel's invented untermenshen army really existed, he shoul rather look not to the east but at the their allies italians

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Japan had 51 IJN divisions in China / Manchuria in the lead up to the Pacific War in December 1941. The IJN could spare only 11 divisions for the southern thrust. So, the Chinese held 40 Japanese divisions in China / Manchuria, which is more than the Soviets did by themselves on the Manchurian border. You can't dismiss the Chinese contribution while extolling the Soviet contribution in holding Japanese troops away from other theatres. Moreover, the Chinese were fighting the Japanese divisions they were holding, while the Soviets weren't.
    And note, that only 11 divisions were enough to made that mess for the allies on the South While Red Army forced Japane command to hold in "reserve" the 15-16 divisions in Manchuria. The Manchuria was not like a rest of China and the chinese resistence there were almost totally non-existed. The ONLY reason why so much japanes troop been there- the 35 soviet division behind the soviet-mongolian line. Yes sure chinese desperatively fought the rest 25 japanese and stop their advance by their blood , with no hope to win - but that was much more then faced allies on the pacific.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Churchill versus the rest - Best or worst WWII leader?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The U.S. began an embargo based on Japanese actions in China that led to Pearl Harbor...
    Nick, the oil-trade embargo has been declared in mid 1941. The chines-japanese war has been started since 1937.Japanes have commited all those genocide in Nankin and ets , having american gasoline fueled.All that time the Washington sold pretty lot of oil to the japanese agressors. You also pretty well supplied the Japane with steel, mashinery and strategical military resources till the mid 1940. That's of cource doesn't deny the fact of american military help to Gomindan. But though..
    IDK the number of divisions. But they (the IJA) lost between 500,000 to over 1,000,000 men. The first est. is from Japanese sources and the second one was a PRC study...
    the 0.5-1 million was aprox the total KIA within the all the japanese-chinese war ( 1937-45) and over all the China. The chinese resistence in namely Mancguria was tiny , compared to the rest of China.
    It is an interesting comparison. But remember those defeated armies were blockaded and lacked much in the way of support. There were only about 15,000 American soldiers and marines in the Philippines at the time with the rest being Filipino under American command...
    yes sure ,those armies were doomed for an external reasons. But my point wasn't that. The 120 000 of japanese was an enourmous military force to the Pacific standards. What migh happend if they got chance to reliaze the Kwantung reserve - only god know. So in fact the Soviet contribution to the Pacific compain was wery essential. Just like the about 1 million of Red Army troop that we have to keep out of war with Germany in critical period of barbarossa.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •