World War III

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49264

    Or all the shit in his head...

    Comment

    • Nitro Express
      DIAMOND STATUS
      • Aug 2004
      • 32819

      Those uniforms haven’t changed since the Soviet Union. I went there in 1975 because my uncle was a Russian history professor and he arranged a trip after the Soviet Union opened up. The Finns were begging us not to go. Our greeters were Russian soldiers who were having fun trying to intimidate us. I was thinking how ugly their uniforms were and how brainwashed they were. We did have a guy in Leningrad ask if we were Americans and he got teary eyed and quietly thanked us for the help we gave the Russians during WWII. Of course he risked getting in trouble telling us this. I was amazed how many good looking women there were. No makeup but they still looked good. Nobody smiled and people just seemed miserable because they were living in a prison and life was just exhausting and trying to stay out of trouble. It was a bland place. Some people were nice to us. I just learned there are nice people everywhere.
      Last edited by Nitro Express; 01-08-2024, 11:42 AM.
      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

      Comment

      • Nitro Express
        DIAMOND STATUS
        • Aug 2004
        • 32819

        This nonsense in the Ukraine probably will end soon. Russia wants Crimea because of the naval base there. They will end up keeping that and the Rest of Ukraine will still be the Ukraine. Like Afghanistan not much changes. People die and the arms manufactures get rich and a lot of US money wasted in an area that really isn’t strategically important to us.
        No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

        Comment

        • Nickdfresh
          SUPER MODERATOR

          • Oct 2004
          • 49264

          Um, Russia has lost about 20% of its navy and a large chunk of its surface fleet and its hold on Crimea is increasing untenable as Ukrainian forces today destroyed a main rail bridge and will probably largely have Crimea nearly completely cutoff from the Russian Federation by the end of this summer. BTW, the Ukraine basically has no surface navy to speak of...

          Comment

          • Seshmeister
            ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

            • Oct 2003
            • 35284

            Stopping Russian expansion, destroying a large part of their best military, kicking Putin really hard to the point he may go completely and all for maybe 5% of your defence budget for a few years. Plus most importantly zero loss of US life.

            Can you imagine what Reagan would have thought of that deal? I don't understand Republican politicians these days it's all party politics nothing to do with logic or beliefs.

            Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.12 Dec 2023
            Last edited by Seshmeister; 01-09-2024, 01:00 PM.

            Comment

            • Nickdfresh
              SUPER MODERATOR

              • Oct 2004
              • 49264

              Unconfirmed but rumors that Ukraine shot down an advanced and expensive early-warning/AWACS type A-50 jet (or the Russians "scored a goal in their own net") over the Sea of Azov are raging on the web...



              Comment

              • Nickdfresh
                SUPER MODERATOR

                • Oct 2004
                • 49264

                Above confirmed. A Russian general and 10 other crew were onboard. The last flight before she went down to Davy Jones Locker:

                Comment

                • Nickdfresh
                  SUPER MODERATOR

                  • Oct 2004
                  • 49264

                  Ukrainian Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles take out Russia's best (T-90M) tank using only 25mm cannon fire. They supposed to use TOW missiles for that but fuck it! The 25mm was way more fun and entertaining...

                  Comment

                  • Seshmeister
                    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                    • Oct 2003
                    • 35284

                    This reminds me of stories in WW2 where on 'Top Trumps' terms you could have a Sherman tank which on paper would be vastly inferior to the military nerd take out a Tiger tank just by hitting it a 4 or 5 times stunning the crew and making something stop working. That and there is a stat the vast majority of tanks are not killed by other tanks. Similarly people go on about how the Tiger tanks were better than allied tanks and it's all irrelevant nonsense when the numbers are 30 Shermans built for each Tiger made and so on. In real life it's more about how many can you make, can you refuel them, how reliable are they and how quickly can you fix them.

                    And this whole drone shit which seems to be changing things in the same way that Battleships were killed off by aeroplanes.

                    Comment

                    • Nitro Express
                      DIAMOND STATUS
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 32819

                      We beat the German tanks by out numbering them. Sadly we lost a lot of tank crews. The Sherman’s were simple and easy to mass produce and easy to maintain. Tigers were far more complicated. With Hitler in charge the Germans did all sorts of dumb shit. Hitler always thought bigger was better.
                      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                      Comment

                      • Nickdfresh
                        SUPER MODERATOR

                        • Oct 2004
                        • 49264

                        ^^Naw. That was largely iconic history for up to about two decades ago. A lot of the German tanks were shit and they had their problems. A Panther tank's engine wore out after about 600 miles, if the final drive make-it-go thing didn't break first which it often did as it was weak.

                        The actual Allied tank losses were about 2:1 in favor of the Germans but not the "5-to-1" crap often quoted. The Allies were on the offensive so they will always take higher losses. They US Army fielded a number of "Jumbo" Shermans that had heavier armor than a Tiger, and the Israelis used the "Super Sherman" M-50/51 mounting a higher velocity 75mm and even a 105mm tank cannon with upgraded sights and stuff that could defeat even the then latest Soviet made T-54/55's and even T-62' well into the 70's!

                        The Chieftan, a real world US Army Nat'l Guard officer and tanker gives a very nice overview here. He isn't an expert because he commanded M-1 Abrams in war, but because he does primary documentary research and makes the good case that actually the Sherman was the best overall tank in WWII...

                        Last edited by Nickdfresh; 01-19-2024, 04:46 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Nickdfresh
                          SUPER MODERATOR

                          • Oct 2004
                          • 49264

                          This reminds me of stories in WW2 where on 'Top Trumps' terms you could have a Sherman tank which on paper would be vastly inferior to the military nerd take out a Tiger tank just by hitting it a 4 or 5 times stunning the crew and making something stop working. That and there is a stat the vast majority of tanks are not killed by other tanks. Similarly people go on about how the Tiger tanks were better than allied tanks and it's all irrelevant nonsense when the numbers are 30 Shermans built for each Tiger made and so on. In real life it's more about how many can you make, can you refuel them, how reliable are they and how quickly can you fix them.
                          The Germans only made about 1400+ Tigers. Overall they were pretty good, but only about 90 were in France after D-Day. But the scene in Fury where Brad Pitt circles the real Tiger tank is crap (Tiger 131 captured by British Army in North Africa after being immobilized by 6 pdr. guns from Churchill tanks lol). The "Fury" tank, a M-4A3E8, had a 76mm "long" gun that could penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger, so not necessary. The shorter 75mm guns needed to get side or rear shots. The British had the "Firefly" Sherman that mounted a 17 pdr. gun that could kill the Tiger at even longer ranges, both the 76 and 17 had their drawbacks and advantages. But both the US and British Armies kept the shorter 75mm gun because its high explosive shell was better for killing people, small works, trucks, etc. and used them in tandem with the higher velocity guns.

                          Further, actually looking at WWII casualty figures, scholars checking US Army documents on dead and wounded Sherman crews found they were a lot lower than anyone expected and infantry had it far worse....

                          Comment

                          • Nickdfresh
                            SUPER MODERATOR

                            • Oct 2004
                            • 49264

                            A decent short video by the guy above...

                            Comment

                            • Seshmeister
                              ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                              • Oct 2003
                              • 35284

                              Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                              The Germans only made about 1400+ Tigers. Overall they were pretty good, but only about 90 were in France after D-Day. But the scene in Fury where Brad Pitt circles the real Tiger tank is crap (Tiger 131 captured by British Army in North Africa after being immobilized by 6 pdr. guns from Churchill tanks lol). The "Fury" tank, a M-4A3E8, had a 76mm "long" gun that could penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger, so not necessary. The shorter 75mm guns needed to get side or rear shots. The British had the "Firefly" Sherman that mounted a 17 pdr. gun that could kill the Tiger at even longer ranges, both the 76 and 17 had their drawbacks and advantages. But both the US and British Armies kept the shorter 75mm gun because its high explosive shell was better for killing people, small works, trucks, etc. and used them in tandem with the higher velocity guns.

                              Further, actually looking at WWII casualty figures, scholars checking US Army documents on dead and wounded Sherman crews found they were a lot lower than anyone expected and infantry had it far worse....
                              I've never watched Fury because I heard it was just total bullshit historically. There are some like U-571 that I just draw a line at watching because of that.

                              Admittedly I did enjoy Braveheart.

                              Comment

                              • Nickdfresh
                                SUPER MODERATOR

                                • Oct 2004
                                • 49264

                                Fury is sort of bullshit, but it's some fun bullshit and the ending scenes are over-the-top cartoon/video game shit. But it had its high points of using real tanks on both sides and does make some points about war. It's a decent day-off and bored popcorn film in the Braveheart vein...

                                I've never seen U-571 and never will not least of which the Bon Jovi cunt factor. But Fury isn't a complete historical purloin of bullshit. Just cartoonish at its worst and chocked full of some realism when it comes to tank crews, the military, and the awful art of killing people...
                                Last edited by Nickdfresh; 01-20-2024, 07:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...