World Forums

by **Synthese** on 03 Apr 2005, 04:09

Mate, Leo ... go away.

Why not go back to the World Politics forum where you can both jerk one another off? That's all you're good for ...

by **Leonid** on 03 Apr 2005, 08:06

Frenchies are brave folks....in cyberspace only, right?

Afraid you're going to endure American supremacy for the rest of your pathetic life, frog-loser, here, there and everywhere. Brace yourself:)

by **Synthese** on 03 Apr 2005, 09:48

Afraid you're going to endure American supremacy for the rest of your pathetic life, frog-loser, here, there and everywhere.

You are silly little boy, Leo, flailing in the dark. What makes you think I'm French? Quel horreur!

You love labels, though, don't you? They help you categorize your tidy little world of good and evil - the French are evil and Uncle Sam is the embodiment of all that is perfect in the world.

You're a pitiful excuse for mankind - ein untermensch.

by **Leonid** on 03 Apr 2005, 09:54

Untermensch, eh? I love it! How does it feel when "untermensch" makes you look inferior every time you open your silly ignorant mouth? And how come "untermensch" is never afraid of competition while the alleged "ubermensch" is constantly whining about and crying for a bigger slice of his delusional "fairness" pie?:)

So what's your ethnicity and location? One must be proud of it, no?

No, Uncle Sam isn't perfect, and 1990 Burgundy harvest was superb....I shouldn't go beyond this point, you wouldn't understand anyway:)

by **Zeus** on 03 Apr 2005, 10:53

Leo is an asshole

by **Leonid** on 03 Apr 2005, 10:55

That's a great improvement on the previous intellectual input, fifi. LOL

by **Zeus** on 03 Apr 2005, 10:56

Drop dead motherfucker

by **Leonid** on 03 Apr 2005, 11:00

Now you've stumbled, such a pity. Take a deep breath and try it again...and again. If you try hard enough, I'll fake hurt feelings:)

by **Zeus** on 03 Apr 2005, 11:02

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

by **Leonid** on 03 Apr 2005, 11:06

Still a lousy performance, fifi. Exhaust/lose yourself while I'm away:)

by **mate** on 03 Apr 2005, 21:09

Synthese

At the very least Leo and I provided something into our background for people to digest why we might have certain viewpoints...if indeed such things are in fact predictive.

Why don't you open up a bit? Who were you on those storied World Politics boards of yore? Relax. You're with friends. Pass the Pinot Noire.

:wink:

by **mate** on 03 Apr 2005, 21:12

Fifi

Egads! Your vocabulary shows slight signs of improvement.

Coupled with your proclamation that you are an asshole, we could be reaching a point of catharis.

:wink:

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 04 Apr 2005, 10:09

Mate, still waiting for your numbers...

by **Guest** on 04 Apr 2005, 18:14

Leo & Marko...Regarding Eugene's WWII Numbers

I think you both remember how I presented Eugene with numbers at World Crossing regarding American military proficiency in select battles. I particularly honed in on the Battle of the Bulge, showing how the US disproportionately inflicted more casualties than it received...something that generally holds throughout most of WWII...certainly on an aggregate consideration, certainly in the big battles.

He was oblivious to it then and he will be oblivious to it now.

Nevertheless, some of you may want to read this series of US Army reports on the Battle of the Bulge. Pure and simple, the American military contained and reversed a massive German counter-offensive...bending, but not breaking. The American GI absolutely proved his worth, as regular US Infantry stopped combined arms German forces.

The Opposing Troop Strengths

On the morning of 16 December the American forces in the path of the German counteroffensive comprised four and two-thirds divisions with an effective strength of about 83,000 men. The heavy weapons then available numbered 242 Sherman tanks, 182 tank destroyers, and 394 pieces of corps and divisional artillery. These troops and weapons were deployed on a meandering front of 104 miles.

The enemy assault divisions posed to the east had concentrated behind some ninety miles of the front manned by Army Group B, and during the night of 16 December over 200,000 combat troops gathered in the forward assembly area, about three miles in depth. The German attack, as it developed during the course of 16 December, was made on an assault front of sixty miles and included 5 armored divisions, 12 2/3 infantry divisions, and about 500 medium tanks, the whole supported by the fire of 1,900 guns and Werfers.

Although it is impossible to measure the exact number of rifle battalions and tank battalions committed by the Germans during the initial breakthrough attack, it is probable that the over-all ratio of German infantry to American was three to one, with a ratio of six to one at points of concentration. German armored superiority was somewhat less pronounced during the first-day assault, only about two to one in medium tanks. If the self-propelled guns employed in a tank role are considered, the superiority enjoyed by the attacker was about four to one.

By 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge. During these eighteen days the Americans had employed 8 armored, 16 infantry, and 2 airborne division in the line. [2] This tabulation of the opposing divisions, however, does not give a true measure of the relative combat strength deployed in what may be called the German phase of the winter battle in the Ardennes.

The American rifle division in 1944 was organized at a strength of 14,032 men, and most of the divisions engaged in this operation entered the fray at full complement. The personnel strength of the German infantry divisions varied, at the time of their commitment, between 8,000 and 17,000, the lower figure representing those divisions which had been refitted at 80 percent of the 1944 Volks Grenadier division table of organization and equipment and the upper figure, which can be applied to only three or four divisions, representing those, like the 26th Volks Grenadier Division, which retained the older, regular infantry division composition. The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men. The normal German rifle regiment numbered 1,868 as contrasted with the American infantry regiment of 3,207 officers and men.

The majority of the German panzer divisions had the same manpower configuration as the two U.S. square armored divisions (the 2d and 3d), that is, a little more than 14,000. The six remaining U.S. armored divisions had the new triangular organization with a roster reduced to 10,666 officers and men. The armored weight of the opposing divisions, however, strongly favored the Americans, for the German panzer division brought an average of 90 to 100 medium tanks into the field whereas the American triangular division was equipped with 186 and the two square divisions had 232 medium tanks in their organization tables. Hitler personally attempted to compensate for this disparity by ordering the attachment of separate Army tank battalions of 40 to 50 Panther or Tigers to the regular panzer divisions.

The battle area during the period of 16 December through 3 January has to be measured as a salient in which the relation between the width of the base and the depth of the penetration represents a measure of the adequacy of the forces employed and their operational mobility. The German failure to break through on the north shoulder at Monschau had considerable impact on the width of the planned assault front, and by 18 December the base of the salient had stabilized at a width of fortyseven air-line miles, narrower than desired. The greatest depth of the German penetration, achieved on the tenth day of the attack, was about sixty air-line miles. On that date, however, the average width of the salient had been reduced to thirty miles and at its tip measured no more than a five-mile front facing the Meuse. Indeed, the width of the assault front proper can be considered as the range of the 75-mm. guns of the 2d Panzer tanks. By this time the Americans had something approaching a coordinated and homogenous line as a retaining wall north and south of the salient, with a frontage of nearly seven miles per division on the north flank and a little more than thirteen miles on the southern flank.

I'll weave in and out with more numbers as discerning readers ask questions.

Yes, this precludes the idiot fringe like Eugene and Fifi.

:wink:

by **Leonid** on 04 Apr 2005, 18:54

Mate

Don't worry, I was oblivious to his numbers as well:)

Only recently the most credible and the only independent radiostation left in Russia, Echo of Moscow, said that Russia's casualties were in fact much much greater than was hitherto known. And even in battles considered Russia's finenest achievements such as Kursk, the Red Army suffered bigger casualties than Wehrmacht.

There is actually nothing to discuss, Stalin apologists' great efforts notwithstanding.

by **mate** on 04 Apr 2005, 21:28

Leo...By the Way

The following web site is a US Army resource that depicts the Battle of the Bulge.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm

Anyways, I absolutely agree with your characterization of the Soviet Red Army performance. It relied on sheer weight of arms and attrition, paying dearly for every inch of territory.

There is no way anybody can credibily compare their performance to that of the WWII American GI and Marine.

by **Leonid** on 04 Apr 2005, 21:41

Mate

Thanks for the very interesting site.

by **mate** on 04 Apr 2005, 21:54

Leo

Ultimately, the site concludes that it is impossible to precisely state the exact casualties sustained by the Germans in the fighting at the Battle of the Bulge. However, most estimates do attribute more suffered by the Wermacht. The US Army web sites ultimately states the following:

What all this cost the Wehrmacht is impossible to say. It is known that losses in materiel were very high-and these no longer could be made good. The only general indication of German casualties is found in railroad reports which show that about 67,000 troops were evacuated from the Army Group B area by rail during December. This figure, of course, would include some of the battle casualties from the earlier fighting east of Aachen, as well as disease cases. A number of German division commanders have made personal estimates of the casualties suffered by their own divisions during the last half of December, and in the cases of those formations continually in the line from 16 or 17 December the average is between two and three thousand "combat effectives" lost per division. Whatever the true number of casualties may have been on both sides, it is a fair assessment that over-all, in this particular instance, the troops on the offensive sustained heavier losses than those on the defensive.

However, at the end, there was the following, which I am sure you will appreciate...as it reflects Eugene's academic lineage:

Only a few years later, representatives of the USSR engaged in negotiations on American claims for the repayment of wartime shipping loans would allege that these debts had been canceled when the Russian armies "saved" the American forces in the Ardennes. Postwar Russian propaganda in this same vein reached a peak in a series of articles by Col. N. Nikiforov alleging that the Soviet attack in January 1945 "averted the danger of the rout of the Anglo-American armies."

Yup...the Soviets saved the Anglo-American armies. And, to think, we owed them money for it!

:P :P :P

by **Leonid** on 04 Apr 2005, 22:28

Mate

Nothing new about that. Russians also love to claim that they saved Europe from Mongol hordes in the 13th century.

How? By being totally defeated by Mongols? Bloody idiots. With saviors like you didn't need Mongols, as some Europeans found out centuries later.

by **Synthese** on 05 Apr 2005, 03:59

Guest: The American GI absolutely proved his worth, as regular US Infantry stopped combined arms German forces.

Just what are you trying to prove, Guest? That the statistics from one battle demonstrate the superiority of the American GI? Good for you.

They killed with even better ratios in Vietnam, and still got their asses kicked out of the country. Your statistical approach is far too selective to have any meaningful worth.

Each war has its peculiar set of characteristics. What the history of war shows us is that war colleges always prepare military leadership from lessons of the "last war" - and the "next war" is never the same.

America sent its boys into Iraq hardly unprepared for a guerilla war, which it has turned out to be. Refusing to understand intelligence that indicated that a large part of the Iraqi Army was quite prepared to surrender was left unheeded.

Bremer's consummate idiocy in disbanding the Iraqi Army triggered a rush of the Iraqi soldiers into the insurgency, which led to the greater bulk of American casualties. He had refused to understand that the Iraqi Army was far more an a Social Security administration as an Army. It sopped up the young Iraqi jobless.

Mindless mistake after mistake after mistake.

Yes, America can "think" it won the war in Iraq, because winning is the only merit in the American mentality. They've killed over 1600 American soldiers and with its arbitrary bombing ("smart bombs", me arse), America has killed nearly 20,000 civilians in Iraq.

Very good numbers, Guest. Excellent work! Medals for all!!!

Who's next on the "Liberation List" ... North Korea? Please warn the populace that the Yanks are coming. With any luck they will liberate themselves by moving to China.

by **mate** on 05 Apr 2005, 12:32

Synthese

Just what are you trying to prove, Guest? That the statistics from one battle demonstrate the superiority of the American GI? Good for you.

I proved what I literally stated what I wanted to prove: namely, that the American GI and Marine proved as proficient as he needed to be in order to efficiently win WWII, given the task at hand and means at his disposal.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Were mistakes made along the way? Sure. You are simply saying the obvious in citing intelligence failures, whether they occur in WWII or in the current war in Iraq. My ultimate point, however, is that the raw quality of the American fighting man...which remains a function of the democratic society and leadership under which he is trained and led...just might enable us to prevail in wars like Iraq.

The bottom line is that your lamentations on American and Iraqi casualties are disingenuously distorting. Under the pretext of issuing sympathy for all the fallen, you seek to promote your own narrow anti-American political agenda...not unlike what many leftist malcontents spew. You only too readily miss that this operation, macabre as such accounting sounds, is remarkable with regards to keeping casualties down given the numbers of troops and power deployed. You distort the fact that the Iraqis indeed do have better prospects for a brighter future than even under Saddam.

Some of you harp on what the late Pope said regarding the war. Fine, but listen to what the Pope's latest exhortations. He issued calls for international cooperation in staying the course in Iraq, in upholding democracy and stabilizing the country.

Above all...never forget that the Pope always confered and sat with American leaders through it all...from Reagan to Bush Sr to Clinton to Bush Jr. The Pope even once visited the US and read things like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, noting how all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator. He marvelled over this and commented positively.

Do you all know that he sought to likewise introduce such language into the European Union Constitution?

I suggest some of you malcontents start putting these kinds of things into context.

:wink:

by **....** on 05 Apr 2005, 22:23

Thanks, Mate; very interesting site.

I do recall in fact that you posted stats before to rebuke Eugene's claims, but that's an informative site all the same.

I do wonder if certain people here like to argue for the sake of it sometimes. Klatu was the worst at such a thing; he would argue bizarre things with me, things that were certainly not true but he'd like to do it anyway to prove some kind of point in a fictional game.

by **Boye B** on 05 Apr 2005, 22:38

Zeus:

That's a terrible thing to say what you said in your last post. Please, can you delete that post?

by **Leonid** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:00

"never forget that the Pope always confered and sat with American leaders through it all...from Reagan to Bush Sr to Clinton to Bush Jr."

The last words said by John Paul II to the American Ambassador to Vatican Mr.Nicholson:

God bless America.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:16

Anonymous wrote:Leo & Marko...Regarding Eugene's WWII Numbers

I think you both remember how I presented Eugene with numbers at World Crossing regarding American military proficiency in select battles. I particularly honed in on the Battle of the Bulge, showing how the US disproportionately inflicted more casualties than it received...something that generally holds throughout most of WWII...certainly on an aggregate consideration, certainly in the big battles.

He was oblivious to it then and he will be oblivious to it now.

Nevertheless, some of you may want to read this series of US Army reports on the Battle of the Bulge. Pure and simple, the American military contained and reversed a massive German counter-offensive...bending, but not breaking. The American GI absolutely proved his worth, as regular US Infantry stopped combined arms German forces.

The Opposing Troop Strengths

On the morning of 16 December the American forces in the path of the German counteroffensive comprised four and two-thirds divisions with an effective strength of about 83,000 men. The heavy weapons then available numbered 242 Sherman tanks, 182 tank destroyers, and 394 pieces of corps and divisional artillery. These troops and weapons were deployed on a meandering front of 104 miles.

The enemy assault divisions posed to the east had concentrated behind some ninety miles of the front manned by Army Group B, and during the night of 16 December over 200,000 combat troops gathered in the forward assembly area, about three miles in depth. The German attack, as it developed during the course of 16 December, was made on an assault front of sixty miles and included 5 armored divisions, 12 2/3 infantry divisions, and about 500 medium tanks, the whole supported by the fire of 1,900 guns and Werfers.

Although it is impossible to measure the exact number of rifle battalions and tank battalions committed by the Germans during the initial breakthrough attack, it is probable that the over-all ratio of German infantry to American was three to one, with a ratio of six to one at points of concentration. German armored superiority was somewhat less pronounced during the first-day assault, only about two to one in medium tanks. If the self-propelled guns employed in a tank role are considered, the superiority enjoyed by the attacker was about four to one.

By 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge. During these eighteen days the Americans had employed 8 armored, 16 infantry, and 2 airborne division in the line. [2] This tabulation of the opposing divisions, however, does not give a true measure of the relative combat strength deployed in what may be called the German phase of the winter battle in the Ardennes.

The American rifle division in 1944 was organized at a strength of 14,032 men, and most of the divisions engaged in this operation entered the fray at full complement. The personnel strength of the German infantry divisions varied, at the time of their commitment, between 8,000 and 17,000, the lower figure representing those divisions which had been refitted at 80 percent of the 1944 Volks Grenadier division table of organization and equipment and the upper figure, which can be applied to only three or four divisions, representing those, like the 26th Volks Grenadier Division, which retained the older, regular infantry division composition. The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men. The normal German rifle regiment numbered 1,868 as contrasted with the American infantry regiment of 3,207 officers and men.

The majority of the German panzer divisions had the same manpower configuration as the two U.S. square armored divisions (the 2d and 3d), that is, a little more than 14,000. The six remaining U.S. armored divisions had the new triangular organization with a roster reduced to 10,666 officers and men. The armored weight of the opposing divisions, however, strongly favored the Americans, for the German panzer division brought an average of 90 to 100 medium tanks into the field whereas the American triangular division was equipped with 186 and the two square divisions had 232 medium tanks in their organization tables. Hitler personally attempted to compensate for this disparity by ordering the attachment of separate Army tank battalions of 40 to 50 Panther or Tigers to the regular panzer divisions.

The battle area during the period of 16 December through 3 January has to be measured as a salient in which the relation between the width of the base and the depth of the penetration represents a measure of the adequacy of the forces employed and their operational mobility. The German failure to break through on the north shoulder at Monschau had considerable impact on the width of the planned assault front, and by 18 December the base of the salient had stabilized at a width of fortyseven air-line miles, narrower than desired. The greatest depth of the German penetration, achieved on the tenth day of the attack, was about sixty air-line miles. On that date, however, the average width of the salient had been reduced to thirty miles and at its tip measured no more than a five-mile front facing the Meuse. Indeed, the width of the assault front proper can be considered as the range of the 75-mm. guns of the 2d Panzer tanks. By this time the Americans had something approaching a coordinated and homogenous line as a retaining wall north and south of the salient, with a frontage of nearly seven miles per division on the north flank and a little more than thirteen miles on the southern flank.

I'll weave in and out with more numbers as discerning readers ask questions.

Yes, this precludes the idiot fringe like Eugene and Fifi.

Actually, Mate, and you know it very well, I presented you with numbers that you could not refute. The facts were provided with sources, many of which were just a click of a mouse away.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:22

mate wrote:Synthese

Just what are you trying to prove, Guest? That the statistics from one battle demonstrate the superiority of the American GI? Good for you.

I proved what I literally stated what I wanted to prove: namely, that the American GI and Marine proved as proficient as he needed to be in order to efficiently win WWII, given the task at hand and means at his disposal.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

NO Mate. You said that American forces were generally more efficient than German counterparts. The criteria you had chosen was the ratio of losses inflicted upon the enemy forces.

In reality, I have provided an abundance of numbers and sources, showing that Germans had been the efficient side, as they killed more allied soldiers in the Western Front combat than did the allies, most significantly - the Americans.

It turns out, from the analysis of the numbers I provided, including those I earlier posted from Kavendish's Chronology of World War II, Germans have lost roughly the same number of soldiers as did Americans. And, don't forget that English, the French, the Polish, and other forces took part in fighting alongside the Americans.

So, once again, you came challenging and were turned away defeated.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:25

Besides, your preponderant desire to show something based on one battle is ridiculously misguided. One could make a point of the Monte-Cassino battle, where American forces alone were numerically superior of the Germans. However, they were also supported by the Brits, Australians, and the Poles. Yet, allies suffered losses at a 2.5:1 ratio.

Perhaps, you must be reminded, that an attacking forces should, with everything else being equal, suffer numerically more significant forces and require an numeric advantage to succeed.

Which is why one can not try to base one's opinion on just one battle (losses in which were very similar if not even)

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:28

Marko wrote:Thanks, Mate; very interesting site.

I do recall in fact that you posted stats before to rebuke Eugene's claims, but that's an informative site all the same.

Marko, but thus is the problem, Mate did not refute my "claims". He produced no numbers unlike me. I did produce numbers applicable to an entire Western theatre from 1943 to 1945 (such to include US military participation). I produced multiple sources, both in print and on the internet, which all supported my "claims".

Also, I produced a pleuthora of data from various battles. Which also was not refuted by Mate.

The only thing Mate did is provide his version of numbers for ONLY ONE BATTLE - the Ardennes. We can argue whether my numbers for this battle are right, or his. But the fact remains - he has not provided any numbers for a myriad of military engagements that were part of the Western Front theatre as well as for the whole theatre.

by **mate** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:39

Eugene

You are such a lying sack of you know what.

:wink:

I absolutely provided numbers that uphold the view of American forces inflicting disproportionate losses upon the Germans and Japanese. I cited as respective examples the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Midway. I calculated the casualties received and inflicted as a ratio of # of troops involved...with the Americans coming out ahead.

Read the US Army site I provided. The Germans initially had the numerical advantage in almost every respect in the Battle of the Bulge...sending out 200k men against 80k defenders. Eventually, when reserves were brought in, the the strengths were about 600k Allied and 500k German.

The US suffered anywhere from 60k - 80k casualties, given most sources. The Germans suffered 100 - 120 casualties. Run the math any way you want. I dare you.

:wink:

As for the Battle of Midway, do you even want to go there? All 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk as opposed to 1 of 3 American carriers, this being the Yorktown. The Japanese had supeior #'s of warsships, planses, carriers, and men...but American Military Intelligence managed to deliver a cryptic victory, pardon my pun!

:wink:

I suggest you do some more reading on WWII from authors like Mansoor. You just might be surprised at what you find.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:43

mate wrote:Eugene

You are such a lying sack of you know what.

I absolutely provided numbers that uphold the view of American forces inflicting disproportionate losses upon the Germans and Japanese. I cited as respective examples the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Midway. I calculated the casualties received and inflicted as a ratio of # of troops involved...with the Americans coming out ahead.

Read the US Army site I provided. The Germans initially had the numerical advantage in almost every respect in the Battle of the Bulge...sending out 200k men against 80k defenders. Eventually, when reserves were brought in, the the strengths were about 600k Allied and 500k German.

The US suffered anywhere from 60k - 80k casualties, given most sources. The Germans suffered 100 - 120 casualties. Run the math any way you want. I dare you.

As for the Battle of Midway, do you even want to go there? All 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk as opposed to 1 of 3 American carriers, this being the Yorktown. The Japanese had supeior #'s of warsships, planses, carriers, and men...but American Military Intelligence managed to deliver a cryptic victory, pardon my pun!

I suggest you do some more reading on WWII from authors like Mansoor. You just might be surprised at what you find.

Mate, you are such an ignorant fool!

The World War II Western Theatre, even if one was to accept a US Army site, consisted of many engagements, in which the allies had a significant numerical advantage and suffered significantly larger losses than Germans.

And you provided absolutely no numbers outside of the Battle of the Bulge.

So, you are a liar yourself.

Secondly, YOU keep bringing up Japanese. Why? I do not have a slightest idea. Even the Red Army achieved military superiority over the Japanese by inflicting heavy defeats on the numerically superior Japanese forces. I never had any doubt and never stated such doubts about the US superiority over the Japanese.

I suggest you read serious authors, not affiliated with official US Army in any way, like the Kavendish, Martin Gilbert, Jon E. Lewis, Anthony Beevor, etc.

by **Leonid** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:45

No really, those GIs must have been awful...Normandy, Ardennes, Sicily, Italy, Germany, Midway, Okinawa..you name if...and they suffered only (too many, by the American attitude toward soldier's life) 300,000 losses.

The great Red Army broke that mark near (not counting in) Berlin, despite having enormous advantage in manpower and weaponry. Because supposedly it was a great army, led by military pros?

As simple as that.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:48

Leonid wrote:No really, those GIs must have been awful...Normandy, Ardennes, Sicily, Italy, Germany, Midway, Okinawa..you name if...and they suffered only (too many, by the American attitude toward soldier's life) 300,000 losses.

The great Red Army broke that mark near (not counting in) Berlin, despite having enormous advantage in manpower and weaponry. Because supposedly it was a great army, led by military pros?

As simple as that.

Actually, both US and Germans had suffered around 120,000 - 150,000 losses in the Western Theatre in 1943 - 1945. And that omits the Brits, the Poles, the Australians, the Canadians, etc

As a well-trained parrot, you continue to bring the Red Army, even though it is not a part of an argument.

by **Leonid** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:51

I'm just smiling at you, useful idiot:)

by **mate** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:56

Eugene

I suggest you digest the following:

PETER R. MANSOOR, currently G-3 for the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, will soon assume command of one of the Army’s armored brigades. He received his Ph.D. in history from Ohio State University, taught military history at West Point, and was special assistant to the director for strategic plans and policy, The Joint Staff, 1997–1999.

This man is no dummy and is respected for his ideas in military and academic circles. I suggest you actually read his book before you dismiss him off-hand simply because he disagrees with your cherished anti-Americanisms.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:56

Leonid wrote:I'm just smiling at you, useful idiot:)

Strong. Very strong.

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:59

mate wrote:Eugene

I suggest you digest the following:

PETER R. MANSOOR, currently G-3 for the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, will soon assume command of one of the Army’s armored brigades. He received his Ph.D. in history from Ohio State University, taught military history at West Point, and was special assistant to the director for strategic plans and policy, The Joint Staff, 1997–1999.

This man is no dummy and is respected for his ideas in military and academic circles. I suggest you actually read his book before you dismiss him off-hand simply because he disagrees with your cherished anti-Americanisms.

Mate, you equally dismiss the authors I provide, by refusing to address the stats and evidence gathered from them.

I do refuse to read this Mansoor fella for his connection wioth US Army. As any other military force, the US Army is known for over-estimating the enemy casualties and underestimating their own. The former had been clearly seen in the current war and the former - in the previous Iraq war.

by **mate** on 05 Apr 2005, 23:59

Read the following for details, but how come the US military won in a direct assault against German defenders in Maginot Line strong-points...while the Germans were not able to do so against the French?

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... tline.aspx

Conclusion

Most of the Maginot Line forts were captured by the U.S. Army with little or no fighting required. For the most part, the Germans chose not to and/or were unable to mount an effective defense of the fortifications. However there were several notable occasions when the Germans had both the means and the will to mount an effective defense. On these occasions, the thick fortifications combined with determined defenders made the capture of the Maginot Line forts a difficult and time-consuming affair for the U.S. Army.

Against the formidable Maginot fortifications and the German defenders, the U.S. Army employed its preponderance of firepower and proficiencies in the use of combined arms: artillery, armor, infantry and engineers. No one American weapon system was able to destroy the Maginot Line forts by itself. Only the M12 self-propelled gun and the M36 tank destroyer using direct fire were able to consistently penetrate and knock-out fortifications. The infantry and engineers captured most of the fortifications but they required firepower support from the other combat arms. U.S. artillery, armor, infantry and engineers were most successful when employed together in a coordinated effort. American commanders quickly realized this and routinely employed their forces in such a manner. As a result, the U.S. Army ultimately accomplished what the German Army had been largely unable to do in 1940: capture Maginot Line forts by assault.

Good will hunting!

Mind you, there are aspects of the above web site you will probably like...and misinterpret.

:wink:

by **Eugene Berkovich** on 06 Apr 2005, 00:05

mate wrote:Read the following for details, but how come the US military won in a direct assault against German defenders in Maginot Line strong-points...while the Germans were not able to do so against the French?

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... tline.aspx

Conclusion

Most of the Maginot Line forts were captured by the U.S. Army with little or no fighting required. For the most part, the Germans chose not to and/or were unable to mount an effective defense of the fortifications. However there were several notable occasions when the Germans had both the means and the will to mount an effective defense. On these occasions, the thick fortifications combined with determined defenders made the capture of the Maginot Line forts a difficult and time-consuming affair for the U.S. Army.

Against the formidable Maginot fortifications and the German defenders, the U.S. Army employed its preponderance of firepower and proficiencies in the use of combined arms: artillery, armor, infantry and engineers. No one American weapon system was able to destroy the Maginot Line forts by itself. Only the M12 self-propelled gun and the M36 tank destroyer using direct fire were able to consistently penetrate and knock-out fortifications. The infantry and engineers captured most of the fortifications but they required firepower support from the other combat arms. U.S. artillery, armor, infantry and engineers were most successful when employed together in a coordinated effort. American commanders quickly realized this and routinely employed their forces in such a manner. As a result, the U.S. Army ultimately accomplished what the German Army had been largely unable to do in 1940: capture Maginot Line forts by assault.

Good will hunting!

Mind you, there are aspects of the above web site you will probably like...and misinterpret.

World Forums

France