Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Russian war history

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Jehan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Location
    France
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    France
    Gender
    Posts
    5,110
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,755
    Given: 8,726

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    You took one battle and make a generalisation to the history of a country? What do you seriously think? Is it silly?



    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    You described french tactic in previous post pretty well. Feel free to look
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_...54%E2%80%9355)
    You see 128k deaths? Russian casualties are not specified to make allies look better i assume.
    Russian casualties are specified in the link you gave. It's written 102.000.


    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    Since russians supposed to lose at least 5 times more than french or english. But i can tell you that russian side suffered 40k deaths
    How you find 40.000? It's written everywhere around 100.000?
    I guess your number are the "official numbers"



    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    As you can see nonstop throwing men onto russians forces gave you victory. Allies were outnumbering russian forces 3 to 1, lost 3 times more men as well, despite technological superiority since russian army still had equips from Napoleon wars era
    I will give you a secret that you only learn in the army school for futur high officier:
    "When you made a siege, you need more troops that the people who defend the city"
    And we didn't lost 3 times more men than russians, just a bit more...

    Both side were poorly equiped and prepare. The proof is that the crimean war is very particular. The far majority of deaths didn't happen in combat.




    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    So before you judge russian war history you better look at that of your own country. And all those billions russian soldiers you keep mentioned will not change much, they were not participating in Crimean War, but were holding ground against other countries possibly attacking Russia or exist only in imagination of modern pseudohistorians inventing absurd russian numbers and casualties.
    Ok as you want the number are totally invent by western propagand.

    A last question. In the case of the recent war russia participate, for exemple the chechenian war. Do you beleive the official number of the russian governement or the number calculate by the association of russian soldiers mothers?
    Because there are big differenc ebetween thoses numbers.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    07-18-2018 @ 09:27 PM
    Location
    disney land
    Meta-Ethnicity
    mega ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    ╭∩╮(-_-)╭∩╮
    Ancestry
    maternity hospital
    Country
    Angola
    Taxonomy
    slayeroid
    Politics
    no rules
    Hero
    Freddy Krueger
    Religion
    Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll
    Relationship Status
    CrazyDaisy and Maintenance
    Gender
    Posts
    4,363
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,939
    Given: 916

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    glass, оставь, не спорь с этим лицемером xd

  3. #33
    is just really nice
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Online
    07-05-2020 @ 02:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    russian
    Country
    Russia
    Gender
    Posts
    3,769
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,435
    Given: 793

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jehan View Post
    You took one battle and make a generalisation to the history of a country? What do you seriously think? Is it silly?
    That is what you are doing in this thread, also it was you who picked Crimean War as example of russian military tactic of outnumbering enemy and wasting men, not me
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehan View Post
    Russian casualties are specified in the link you gave. It's written 102.000.
    dead and wounded, while allied casualties include only dead, but even dead+wounded on russian side is lower than plain death toll on french/english side
    How you find 40.000?
    Garrison lost olny 23k men dead, 17k were casualties of army that tried to help besieged Sevastopol but suffered heavy losses without any gain because of outdated equipement. If we were counting only garrison you would look even worse
    I will give you a secret that you only learn in the army school for futur high officier:
    "When you made a siege, you need more troops that the people who defend the city"
    And we didn't lost 3 times more men than russians, just a bit more...
    No, dear, you lost +3 more men than russians. No matter if they died in combat or fell to diseases. Russian garrison suffered from poor nutrition and diseases just as much.
    They served their purpose in besieging anyway, and french ships were delivering new cannon fodder nonstop.
    Ok as you want the number are totally invent by western propagand.
    I would not call it western propaganda, but there is something wrong with all those "new reseraches made in 2000s" with revisionistic point of view.
    You know number of raped women in soviet occupied Germany was 20-25k up to 1991 then it suddenly started to grow. I will not be surprized if number of raped already exceeded number of women Nearly everywhere russian casualties and "atrocities" became 10-20+ times over last 10-15 years.
    Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Jehan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Location
    France
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    France
    Gender
    Posts
    5,110
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,755
    Given: 8,726

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    That is what you are doing in this thread, also it was you who picked Crimean War as example of russian military tactic of outnumbering enemy and wasting men, not me
    In my initial post, I trully took battle in hazard by clicking on link in wikipedia.




    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    dead and wounded, while allied casualties include only dead, but even dead+wounded on russian side is lower than plain death toll on french/english side

    Garrison lost olny 23k men dead, 17k were casualties of army that tried to help besieged Sevastopol but suffered heavy losses without any gain because of outdated equipement. If we were counting only garrison you would look even worse
    I agree on this.
    On the first link you gave in english wiki, they probably took in account many battle who took place around the siege. If you only speak about the siege I agree with you.



    Quote Originally Posted by glass View Post
    No, dear, you lost +3 more men than russians. No matter if they died in combat or fell to diseases. Russian garrison suffered from poor nutrition and diseases just as much.
    They served their purpose in besieging anyway, and french ships were delivering new cannon fodder nonstop.

    I would not call it western propaganda, but there is something wrong with all those "new reseraches made in 2000s" with revisionistic point of view.
    You know number of raped women in soviet occupied Germany was 20-25k up to 1991 then it suddenly started to grow. I will not be surprized if number of raped already exceeded number of women Nearly everywhere russian casualties and "atrocities" became 10-20+ times over last 10-15 years.

    You trully exagerate there.
    You can understand easy than in the case of rape, a huge percent of women don't talk about it and didn't report it.

    And you don't answear to this question.
    A last question. In the case of the recent war russia participate, for exemple the chechenian war. Do you beleive the official number of the russian governement or the number calculate by the association of russian soldiers mothers?
    Because there are big difference between thoses numbers.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Online
    07-18-2019 @ 05:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Albania
    Gender
    Posts
    9,641
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,848
    Given: 2,744

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastianus Rex View Post
    That's a myth, technologically both countries were almost on pair, the difference of the first years of war was that Germany was already prepared for it. Once USSR turn their economy/production to War, they produced superior tanks and artillery.
    No, you are wrong. Germans were far superior in technology from the other Great Powers. This is so true that after the WWII Russians and Americans continued to use military technology stolen from the Germans. I can give you many examples, but one is the more significant, were the Nazi scientists who sent the Americans in the Moon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastianus Rex View Post
    They wouldn't, even if they conquered Moscow or Leningrad it would change nothing, they would face a massive resistance and brutal guerrilla warfare, it is unsustainable to conquer and control Russia for a long period. Hitler was a fucking lunatic who didn't have a clue of what was expecting them.
    If Germans would invade one of the three most important cities, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the war was over. Someone from the soviet strategists suggested to Stalin the tactic used by Tsar by abandoning Mosca to Napoleon. Stalin discarded imediately this option. Moscow was a strategic node.

  6. #36
    I was blind but now I see
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Sebastianus Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    02-27-2024 @ 12:51 PM
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Country
    Portugal
    Gender
    Posts
    10,324
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8,656
    Given: 5,621

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laberia View Post
    No, you are wrong. Germans were far superior in technology from the other Great Powers. This is so true that after the WWII Russians and Americans continued to use military technology stolen from the Germans. I can give you many examples, but one is the more significant, were the Nazi scientists who sent the Americans in the Moon.
    That was truth only on some fields, Germans were ahead on u-boats, missile and aircraft technology but they didn't had a production capacity to match the allies and were completely crushed once the Allies set their production to a war economy. Russians produced more and better tanks, also excellent artillery; England and USA had the best navies (Germany didn't have carriers) and the air force couldn't even match the numbers of USA. Try reading Albert Speer memoirs, he was Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production and details very well why Germany had already lost the War by 1941.

    If Germans would invade one of the three most important cities, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the war was over. Someone from the soviet strategists suggested to Stalin the tactic used by Tsar by abandoning Mosca to Napoleon. Stalin discarded imediately this option. Moscow was a strategic node.
    That's a completely unrealistic myth, the USSR had already the bulk of its production in the Urals and Stalin had everyting set and ready to transfer the capital to Samara (Kuybyshev) in the case Moscow was taken. The fall of one of those cities would not affect much Russia's production of fighting capacity, it would be more a psychological impact than anything else, and would force Germany to strecht their supply lines way beyind their capacity and with constant guerrillas on their behing their lines. A long term conflict was always a no win situation for Germany.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Online
    07-18-2019 @ 05:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Albania
    Gender
    Posts
    9,641
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,848
    Given: 2,744

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastianus Rex View Post
    That was truth only on some fields, Germans were ahead on u-boats, missile and aircraft technology but they didn't had a production capacity to match the allies and were completely crushed once the Allies set their production to a war economy. Russians produced more and better tanks, also excellent artillery; England and USA had the best navies (Germany didn't have carriers) and the air force couldn't even match the numbers of USA. Try reading Albert Speer memoirs, he was Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production and details very well why Germany had already lost the War by 1941.



    That's a completely unrealistic myth, the USSR had already the bulk of its production in the Urals and Stalin had everyting set and ready to transfer the capital to Samara (Kuybyshev) in the case Moscow was taken.
    Excuse me, do you have read my previous posts in this thread? Let me repeat again. The Germans were much more advanced than the other Great Powers. But the Great Powers produced much more than Germans. I said is the last war where quantity won against quality. And the german tanks and airplanes were the best. The german pilots were the best.
    It's true that soviets moved all their industry beyond the Ural mountains and this was an intelligent move. But losing one of the main cities for them was equal losing the war. I explained the importance of Moscow, but if the Soviets lost Stalingrad, this means that the oil fields of Baku changed hands. And that would have a decisive outcome in the course of the war. Losing the European part of Soviet Union was an irreparable loss. The options for the Germans were different, in this situation they could easily play on the defensive, or they could begin a manhunt in the steppes.
    Last edited by Laberia; 04-18-2017 at 05:25 PM.

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)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2015, 02:25 PM
  2. Russian old history in paints of modern autors
    By Stanislav in forum European Culture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-2014, 02:38 PM
  3. How impressive is Russian history?
    By Joe McCarthy in forum Россия
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 05-05-2014, 10:22 AM
  4. Should Crimea and Turkey have a Russian History Month ?
    By RussiaPrussia in forum Türkiye
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-06-2014, 01:43 AM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-13-2012, 08:29 PM

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
  •