SS Festung Panzer
Name: SS Festung PanzerDesignation: Heavy Tank
Crew: 7
Armor:
Main Chassis: 2 inches titanium alloy, 10 inches durasteel, 4 inches ablative
Turret: 1 inch titanium alloy, 4 inches durasteel, 1 inch ablative
Speed: 120 km/hr without weapons charged, 100 max with weapons charged, 80 km/hr efficient, 60 km/hr while weapons charging
Height: 5 meters
Length: 20 meters
Width: 8 meters
Weapons:
Turret: 135 mm cannon x1
20 mm cannon x1
Twin blaster cannon x2 coaxle
Air Defense Turret: Quad laser cannon x1
Main Chassis Front: 30mm chain gun x1
Twin blaster cannon x1 coaxle with chain gun
Main Chassis Rear: Twin blaster cannon x1
Description: The largest and most powerful tank developed by the SS, the Festung Panzer is designed to supplement units of Blitz Panzers, becoming the spearhead for tank sections. It's three twin blaster cannons can target infantry or light vehicles, while its 30mm chain gun, 20mm cannon, and 135mm cannon can obliterate enemy armor. Its quad laser cannon is good for air defense and, occasionally, additional rear support. The rear is the weakest area, with only a twin blaster cannon covering it.
It's armor is incredible. The main chassis has at least 14 inches of armor, both durasteel and ablative, as well as a 2-inch titanium alloy skin. In order to achieve minimum speed, the armor in the turret had to be shaved to 5 inches, but that is still enough to take multiple hits from lighter weapons and even a few from larger ones.
While the speed of the Festung Panzer may seem fast for its size and mass, much of the main chassis is consumed by the engines. The Festung Panzer uses a varient of a hydro-electric engine that yields a massive power output, the result of nanotech research and experiments with the Blitz Panzer and the Skorpion. Once again, the exhaust is emitted from the gap between the turret and the chassis, leaving the integrity of the hull intact.
The Festung Panzer is the first of the SS tanks to come with varying styles of camoflage. It is covered with a thin layer of fiberplast that changes color with the push of a button. It comes in varients of desert, urban, wooded, snow, plains, jungle, rocky, and night, each with a specific pattern to enable the tank to blend in with its surroundings. It is expected that more varients will come out in software update packages.
Sensors and communications on the Festung Panzer are also state of the art. The Festung incorporates visual, sonar, and radar scanning, all available at the navigator's station. It also comes with the latest in Imperial jamming and anti-jamming software as well as the line-of-sight stealth comm used in the Phantom Mk II.
As the Festung Panzer is such an advanced tank, security is quite tight. A new system of authorization has been devised, incorporating vocal patterns, retinal scans, palm and fingerprint readers, and DNA sampling of the tank commander and drivers before operation. Anti-intruder methods include dangerous electric shocks that are guaranteed to render a person unconscious or a droid inoperable.
[url="http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ssfestungpanzerfu4.jpg"]
[/url]
Comments
#82 1:16am 28/09/07
The Canadian dollar is actually worth more than the US dollar now.
#81 1:15am 28/09/07
I'll gladly pay that $1 CDN to Wes if only I could uncover my eyes for fear of seeing this debate continued.
#80 1:06am 28/09/07
Even if it is... so?
#79 12:34am 28/09/07
That would be a lot funnier if our dollar wasn't a par.
#78 12:31am 28/09/07
So to reitamerate, Beff you owe Wes ONE DOLLAR for not responding, but Drayson gets nothing, other than the satisfaction of knowing that everyone else was too tired to respond to his 6 page long reply. Grats Wes on your dollar. Please give Beff your mailing address so that you may receive one (1) Canadian Dollar sent to your address.
#77 11:01pm 27/09/07
[QUOTE=Darth Skygge]That is true under the restrictions in place now. If US soldiers were allowed to perform their task without many of the current restrictions, things would be different. For example, if a rule was made that any Iraqi seen carrying a weapon of any sort can be shot on sight. Or countries that harbor terrorists will be bombed to dust. Look at what happened immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Libya surrendered terrorists, Syrian and Iran began to backpedal, Lebenon and Saudi Arabia had a more cautious attitude. It wasn't until the Democrats started crying "Withdrawal" that the attacks began to seriously increse.[/quote]What you're saying is ridiculous. Yes, the US might "win" it's war. They would also slaughter tens of thousands (more) innocents than they are now! I know you value an American life above that of anyone else, but a thousand innocent lives? Ten thousand innocent lives? How many innocent people have to die before you'll accept that hey, maybe this isn't the best plan.
Bombing countries into the dust will beget more terrorism, not reduce it. You're talking about the mass killing of thousands of people because their government harbours terrorists. You're talking about shooting people on site. These are ridiculous ideas, and there's good reason why such "restrictions" are placed on American soldiers. But then, I don't consider "don't kill innocent people" a restriction so much as a moral neccessity.
[QUOTE]In Vietnam, that meant going where the war was. In Iraq, it means being able to fight without having to worry about offending someone.[/QUOTE]You know, things are more complicated than "go where the war was". Stop and consider what might have happened if the US [i]had[/i] bombed Viet Cong camps in other nations, or infringed on their territory. At best, a cooling of relations between the US and those nations; at worst, those nations would enter the war [i]against[/i] the United States. This is why the UN was very wary about proceeding too far North in Korea, for risk of provoking China into the war. But obviously you have no grasp whatsoever of international relations, other than "US Might is Right". Which is not the case, you should know. In Iraq, it's a case of not causing the mass slaughter of innocents, which as you say yourself is one of the reasons the US is there in the first place! You're advokating replacing one murderer with another. But I guess it's okay to murder innocent people, as long as you're American and not Iraqi, is that right?
[QUOTE] No, and no. First of all, I don't think the US created the terrorists. The terrorists were there already; the US invasion just brought them out of the woodwork like termites.[/QUOTE]
Then you're lying to yourself. Consider, for a moment, what you would do if China launched an invasion of mainland America. As a warmongering, gung-ho cowboy, you would (at least advokate) riding into battle to meet them. They're invading your homeland, killing your friends and neighbours, and imposing their communist beliefs on you. You would fight out against them by any means neccessary. And they would label you a terrorist. Just because we think democracy is the "right" way a nation should be run, does not give us the right to force democracy upon a nation. The insurgents in Iraq are normal people, trying to defend their homeland. The US invasion certainly created more terrorists than were there beforehand, and to think otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant of what is going on. Consider my example above: you would call yourself a rebel or freedom fighter, I am certain. Yet the insurgents are labelled terrorists*.
[QUOTE]As for the killing of Iraqi civilians, no, I don't think that's OK.[/quote]
So when you're bombing Iran into dust (your words!), the bombs are magically going to miss innocent people? You've already said several times you consider the slaughter of innocent people unimportant, as long as the USA gets its way.
[quote]But in truth, most Iraqi civilians are glad to have American troops there. It's better than being slaughtered in the mass executions of Sadaam Hussain, better than being ruled by a fundamental Islamic dictator who would kill all who disagree with him, better than having someone like the president of Iran in power. Are people dying? Yes. But that is at the hands of the terrorists, not the US soldiers.[/QUOTE]Whether you're killed by Saddam, the US Army, or the terrorists, you're just as dead. At least with Saddam in power the chances of being killed or blown up while walking down the street were much lower. As for the terrorists doing the killing: much of it, yes. And that is why we label them "terrorists" and not "insurgents" by and large. But I remind you, the terrorists are only there because the United States is there.
[QUOTE]
"Blaming the Democrats..." I can respond to. Yes, if the US Army wasn't there, the terrorists would not be there. They would be elsewhere, blowing up whatever they liked, killing even more civilians. Instead, we have defined the battleground and developed a method of dealing with their hatred and psychomania. I'm not saying the method is foolproof, or that it's perfect, but at least it's working.[/QUOTE]This is wishful thinking. I've already explained how and why the number of terrorists in the world would be much smaller were it not for the USA's actions in Iraq - to say otherwise is stupid. The US presents a very obvious and very easy target in Iraq. All one need do is consider the number of terrorist attacks pre-GW2 and post, to see that you're statement that "they would all be elsewhere" is wrong. These terrorists did not come from terrorizing in other nations to Iraq, they were born and bred in Iraq because America is occupying their homeland! And from the Middle East in general, because they see the war on Iraq as part of a larger war on Islam. But the vast majority were not terrorists before 2003.
[QUOTE] OK, I don't know enough about this to respond to everything you just said. I'll have to do some more research into it. However, I can say that Bush did what he needed to do. I fully supported him then - as did, by the way, most of Congress, Democrat and Republican - and the only reason I don't support him now is because he is still putting too many restrictions on our troops.[/QUOTE]He got approval from Congress for his war, yes. He did not get sanction from the United Nations, the approval or support of any but one of the USA's traditional allies, or the support of most of the world. Remember the Peace Rallies [i]before[/i] GW2? They were the largest rallies ever held before a conflict had actually started, because even then people realized that this is a fucking stupid war. But of course he got Congress: the USA has a lot to gain from occupying Iraq. A massive oil field, for example.
[QUOTE]Remove the violence perpetrated by the US and terrorism will be far lower? I think not. Do you really want another 9-11? Or was that caused by US violence, too?[/QUOTE]Er, you're aware that the CIA was responsible for training [i]and[/i] funding Osama bin Laden, right? And then leaving him to fend for himself as soon as they were done using him, thus fueling much of his hatred for the USA? 9/11 was [b]one[/b]act of terrorism. There was no 9/11 before 2001, and no ongoing Gulf War. So to say "well, there hasn't been a 9/11 since, we must be doing something right" is just plain stupid.
[QUOTE]The US interfering in sovereign nations? You bet. And proud of it. Proud to be the world's policeman, cause if we weren't I shudder to think who would be. Russia? China? Iran?[/QUOTE]
Then you're an idiot. You wonder why people hate the United States, you wonder why they attack you, but you're still proud to muck about in other nation's sovereignty. Some people would think this disrespect for the world at large has something to do with the negative opinion so many people have of you.
The United States did not exist when the Koran was written. Terrorists target the US because the US is a bully, not because of what a book written two thousand years ago says. Americans blame the Koran because it's easier than admitting you've done wrong. Note how the biggest two international terrorist attacks since 9/11 were comitted against allies of the US? Nations involved in the Iraq War? Think there's a correleation? And need I remind you that the masterminds behind the Oklahoma City bombing was a born and bred American, not a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist?
#76 9:10pm 27/09/07
German panzers, tank for tank, were far better than the Russans (Tiger, Panther and Late Pz. IVs vs JS-2 and T-34). But during the war, the Russans produced in excess of 30,000 T-34s, while the Germans only managed to crank out 2,000 Tigers, 5,000 Panthers, and 5,000 Panzer IVs. And this is why Germany lost.
#75 9:00pm 27/09/07
IN Krakens Defense Telan the T34 40 first meet with PzIIId's and PZIVc's, And they did slaughter the Germans when they first engaged. It was just a matter of being out gunned and out armored. It would take close to six months before the first Panthers and the PZivg's hit the eastern front. Not that I agree with what he said. but the T34 was possibly the best tank of WWII when you consider all aspects of tank warfare. Only the Panther rates close to it.
#74 8:42pm 27/09/07
Post complaince Kraken rebuttal:
WTF? Your statements are laughable because they are devoid of fact. A single Russian tank defeating a German armored unit? Are you mad?
I would certainly like the citation of a Russian Pre Dreadnaught fighting off the Breslau. It did not happen.
Superior Soviet equipment? Let us think for a moment.
t-34 Vs Panther
PBsK vs SG 44
Shtormovik v Stuka
IS II v King Tiger
enough said.
And by the way - traitors need to be executed. I personally loathe democracy in all its forms as you well know and I bad mouht it here in this, my adopted country, because I was born to know better. Some of you were raised here and as such should be loyal to your government and your people. Besides treason, I remind you of another word - -sedition.
Sometimes it is better to obey and not question authority. Seriously
#73 7:57pm 27/09/07
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]That assumes that the "war on communism" was something young Americans should be dying for. We're not talking about a communist invasion of America, we're talking about a civil war in Vietnam where one side happened to be supported by communist forces. For the thousands of Americans that died in Vietnam, it was a war for nothing. Nothing was accomplished, and indeed, the American's greatest fear because realized following the withdrawal.[/QUOTE]Yes, I am assuming that. I am of the opinion, as Reagan was, that Communism is one of the greatest blights the world has ever seen. For those Americans who died, it was not a war for nothing, as it was but a battle in a war that was ultimately won. We bled the enemy there, and badly. We robbed him of funds, of supplies, and were it not for governmental restrictions on the war (which I'll get to in a minute), we probably would have emerged victorious.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]But you're assumption that overwhelming force would crush the enemy is just plain wrong, and clearly you have zero sense of strategy. The US did go into Iraq with overwhelming force: remember how quickly the Iraqi Army fell? How quickly US troops got to Baghdad? The problem you clearly do not understand is that even a massive army cannot cope well with insurgent warfare: you cannot simply meet them in a large field and have at it until one side cries uncle. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have if you cannot see the enemy.[/QUOTE]That is true under the restrictions in place now. If US soldiers were allowed to perform their task without many of the current restrictions, things would be different. For example, if a rule was made that any Iraqi seen carrying a weapon of any sort can be shot on sight. Or countries that harbor terrorists will be bombed to dust. Look at what happened immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Libya surrendered terrorists, Syrian and Iran began to backpedal, Lebenon and Saudi Arabia had a more cautious attitude. It wasn't until the Democrats started crying "Withdrawal" that the attacks began to seriously increse.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]The same was true of Vietnam. Few will argue the US did not have overwhelming force: thousands of soldiers, airplanes, and ships, and they were unable to defeat the Viet Cong because they could not deal with their tactics.[/QUOTE]Yes, the US had overwhelming force; they just weren't allowed to use it. We could not bomb VC camps in Laos or Cambodia. We could not act in a manner inconsistant with that of 'military advisor.' In a sense we were merely policemen rather than soldiers, a thought that appalls me. If soldiers are to be committed, they should be allowed to fight like soldiers. In Vietnam, that meant going where the war was. In Iraq, it means being able to fight without having to worry about offending someone.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]So, you think it's a good thing that the United States created terrorists by invading a sovereign nation, because now you can kill them? I worry about the kind of mind that thinks this is the right course of action. Not to mention you seem to think it's perfectly alright for terrorists to kill innocent Iraqi civilians, just as long as it's not precious American civilians being slaughtered in the thousands.[/QUOTE]No, and no. First of all, I don't think the US created the terrorists. The terrorists were there already; the US invasion just brought them out of the woodwork like termites. Not to mention the fact that we're actually finally beginning to accomplish things (I refer you to General Petraeus's testimony before Congress). As for the killing of Iraqi civilians, no, I don't think that's OK. But in truth, most Iraqi civilians are glad to have American troops there. It's better than being slaughtered in the mass executions of Sadaam Hussain, better than being ruled by a fundamental Islamic dictator who would kill all who disagree with him, better than having someone like the president of Iran in power. Are people dying? Yes. But that is at the hands of the terrorists, not the US soldiers.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]That scares me. A lot. Because I'm left wondering what kind of human being assigns value to life based on country of birth. Or what kind of human being thinks it right to provoke someone into anger and then feels justified in killing them.[/QUOTE]Read the above.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Right. I forget that everything was awesome when you got there. Wait - it wasn't? So, you must be making things up, then. Blaming the Democrats for terrorism is just stupid: if the US Army was not there, there would not be insurgents there. It's a simple equation. Calling Democrats traitors is ever stupider: again, the US fought several wars so that people could speak freely [i]without[/i] being labeled traitors.[/QUOTE]You lost me here. I'm not sure what the first part of what you said means, so I'll wait for clarification before responding. The second part, though, starting with "Blaming the Democrats..." I can respond to. Yes, if the US Army wasn't there, the terrorists would not be there. They would be elsewhere, blowing up whatever they liked, killing even more civilians. Instead, we have defined the battleground and developed a method of dealing with their hatred and psychomania. I'm not saying the method is foolproof, or that it's perfect, but at least it's working.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Well, first, false. Gulf War II was planned and executed by the Bush Administration and the Project for the New American Century, a Republic think-tank. I'm quite sure the Clinton Admin had a plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein, just as they had plans for any number of things they might wish to do at some point. Every Administration does. What's important here is that it was the Bush Administration that acted, and poorly, to remove Saddam. That any other administration had a plan on how to do so is irrelevant. You confuse "a plan in place" with "plans to do so". Just because Clinton had a plan, does not mean he would ever have acted on it. Bush, on the other hand, barely had a plan, and acted on it.[/QUOTE]OK, I don't know enough about this to respond to everything you just said. I'll have to do some more research into it. However, I can say that Bush did what he needed to do. I fully supported him then - as did, by the way, most of Congress, Democrat and Republican - and the only reason I don't support him now is because he is still putting too many restrictions on our troops.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Are you a fundamental Islamic terrorist? Because if not, you have no place to speak about "the only thing they understand".[/QUOTE]I will answer this in a later post, since I need to get access to some information to properly respond. However, I can say that it is possible for someone to speak for others insofar as they have heard the statements coming out of their mouths. One of the basic goals of fundamental Islamic terrorism is the wholesale destruction of the United States and Israel, neither of which is something I am willing to let them achieve.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Nevermind that its a stupid, false blanket statement - we've already established that violence is not an answer, since violence is the primary [i]cause of[/i] terrorism in the Middle East today. Take away the violence perpetrated by the US invasion, the level of terrorism internationally would be far lower. Why do these people think America is "the Great Satan"? Because your nation thinks it can do whatever it wants, and has a habit of invading or otherwise interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations.[/QUOTE]We have not established that violence is the primary cause of terrorism in the Middle East today. The primary cause of terrorism is people who take the Quran literally and act out that which Muhammed instituted. That is the definition of fundamental Islam. Those who say that Islam is, fundamentally, a peaceful religion are delusional, mentally ill, or ignorant. There is a branch of Islam that can be peaceful, and for those who embrace such a view I have great respect, though I think they are still mistaken. But that is not who we are dealing with. We are dealing with those who desire to make Islam a worldwide religion, a globe united under Allah, and who will use violence as a means to attain that goal.
Remove the violence perpetrated by the US and terrorism will be far lower? I think not. Do you really want another 9-11? Or was that caused by US violence, too?
The US interfering in sovereign nations? You bet. And proud of it. Proud to be the world's policeman, cause if we weren't I shudder to think who would be. Russia? China? Iran?
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]It's a ridiculous claim to make that invading Iraq will solve terrorism when it is the leading cause of why so many people today hate the United States. And it takes a mighty strong set of binders for someone to actually believe the kind of things you're saying. Either you're so ingrained in the belief that US Might = Right that you actually think you're right, or you're just plain stupid and can't see or admit when you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
The world will always hate the country that is in power. That is a fundamental fact. And the fact that the US has by one means or another kept this world from plunging into total destruction is a miracle in and of itself. I'm surprised even we were strong enough to do that.
EDIT: And Beff, in compliance with your request, I'll stop now.
#72 7:37pm 27/09/07
If I give you all a dollar, will you stop now before this debate degrades further? You have all iterated and reiterated and re-reiterated some very good points. Let us not make this a game of Merry-Go-Round.
#71 6:20pm 27/09/07
[QUOTE=Darth Skygge]Um...I refer you to my above post in which I stated that Vietnam was but a battle in the scope of a larger war against Communism. The South Vietnamese asked for our aid in defending their nation against a wave of Communist aggression, and aggression made possible by Chinese and Soviet arms and funds. Our problem was that we, as in Iraq, did not go in with overwhelming force.[/quote]That assumes that the "war on communism" was something young Americans should be dying for. We're not talking about a communist invasion of America, we're talking about a civil war in Vietnam where one side happened to be supported by communist forces. For the thousands of Americans that died in Vietnam, it was a war for nothing. Nothing was accomplished, and indeed, the American's greatest fear because realized following the withdrawal.
But you're assumption that overwhelming force would crush the enemy is just plain wrong, and clearly you have zero sense of strategy. The US did go into Iraq with overwhelming force: remember how quickly the Iraqi Army fell? How quickly US troops got to Baghdad? The problem you clearly do not understand is that even a massive army cannot cope well with insurgent warfare: you cannot simply meet them in a large field and have at it until one side cries uncle. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have if you cannot see the enemy.
The same was true of Vietnam. Few will argue the US did not have overwhelming force: thousands of soldiers, airplanes, and ships, and they were unable to defeat the Viet Cong because they could not deal with their tactics.
[QUOTE] Hm...violence begets violence. Perhaps, in some situations. I agree, there are more terrorists there now than in 2003. Good. More for us to kill. At least they're attacking us there and not here, on our own soil.[/QUOTE]So, you think it's a good thing that the United States created terrorists by invading a sovereign nation, because now you can kill them? I worry about the kind of mind that thinks this is the right course of action. Not to mention you seem to think it's perfectly alright for terrorists to kill innocent Iraqi civilians, just as long as it's not precious American civilians being slaughtered in the thousands.
That scares me. A lot. Because I'm left wondering what kind of human being assigns value to life based on country of birth. Or what kind of human being thinks it right to provoke someone into anger and then feels justified in killing them.
[QUOTE]And if you noticed, the terrorists increased only after the media and our our 'loyal' Democrats began screaming for Bush to bring the troops home. In fact, one might even say that our apparent willingness to pull out (read, weakness), emboldened the terrorists.[/QUOTE]Right. I forget that everything was awesome when you got there. Wait - it wasn't? So, you must be making things up, then. Blaming the Democrats for terrorism is just stupid: if the US Army was not there, there would not be insurgents there. It's a simple equation. Calling Democrats traitors is ever stupider: again, the US fought several wars so that people could speak freely [i]without[/i] being labeled traitors.
[QUOTE] And, in case you didn't know, removing Sadaam from power was an operation planned by the Clinton administration. Not the Bush administration. Just FYI.[/QUOTE]Well, first, false. Gulf War II was planned and executed by the Bush Administration and the Project for the New American Century, a Republic think-tank. I'm quite sure the Clinton Admin had a plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein, just as they had plans for any number of things they might wish to do at some point. Every Administration does. What's important here is that it was the Bush Administration that acted, and poorly, to remove Saddam. That any other administration had a plan on how to do so is irrelevant. You confuse "a plan in place" with "plans to do so". Just because Clinton had a plan, does not mean he would ever have acted on it. Bush, on the other hand, barely had a plan, and acted on it.
[quote]And violence is the answer, in this situation. It is the only thing fundamental Islamic terrorists understand, and it is the only way to beat them. You cannot win the hearts and minds of a people that thinks your nation is the Great Satan.[/QUOTE]Are you a fundamental Islamic terrorist? Because if not, you have no place to speak about "the only thing they understand". Nevermind that its a stupid, false blanket statement - we've already established that violence is not an answer, since violence is the primary [i]cause of[/i] terrorism in the Middle East today. Take away the violence perpetrated by the US invasion, the level of terrorism internationally would be far lower. Why do these people think America is "the Great Satan"? Because your nation thinks it can do whatever it wants, and has a habit of invading or otherwise interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations.
It's a ridiculous claim to make that invading Iraq will solve terrorism when it is the leading cause of why so many people today hate the United States. And it takes a mighty strong set of binders for someone to actually believe the kind of things you're saying. Either you're so ingrained in the belief that US Might = Right that you actually think you're right, or you're just plain stupid and can't see or admit when you are wrong.
#70 5:51pm 27/09/07
[quote]The Soviet's single handed defeated Germany? Have you ever studied history? I mean even looked at the cover of a military text? Been in the same room as one?[/quote]
I would ask you the same question as well.
[quote]
I would hope that some sort of divine osmosis would show you that the Red ARMY IN no way even came close to defeating Germany.[/quote]
No, the fact that they overran German territory in Poland, re-conquered the territory that they had lost in Russia, and went all the way to near Berlin before the Germans capitulated, yes, your right, the Red Army came no where close to defeating Germany.
[quote]
Even in the waning days of the war it was only sheer numbers which bested the Wehrmacht.[/quote]
Umm, not quite. Take the instance of a single Russian tank fending off a number of German armoured units. Sheer numbers played a big role in stemming the initial German raids into Moscow, and the Russian winter played a big part as well, but as the war wore on, it was Soviet technology and skills, as well as sheer numbers, that brought down germany.
[quote]It was American and British supplied equipment such as the Dodge Willy and GMC trucks as well as food like SPAM that saved Russia and aided their attack.[/quote]
It certainly aided Russia in the speed of which they defeated Germany, but it was the Russian Winter and sheer numbers that halted the German advance. And believe it or not, Russia herself had superior weapons, tanks, and airplanes that could handle the best Germans had to offer. Take for example the IL-2 flying tank, armed with an array of 20 and 30mm cannon, rockets, and heavily armoured as well.
[quote]the Soviet Army was outgeneralled. Generalship however cannot win battles where there is no more ammunition or men are marching on their stomachs.[/quote]
you can thank Stalin and his purges for that. Honestly, I think that dictator did more harm than good for his country.
And the Russians lost a few battleships, cruisers, and destroyers true in the early months of WW2. But then, there ships were old rusting hulks anyways, sitting in harbour unused and poorly maintained. I would call it a waste of firepower to deal with those old ships.
[quote]need we even mention the Goeben and Breslau, two German battlecruisers that wreaked untold and unchecked havoc in the Black Sea.[/quote]
Until they came face to face with the Russian Pre-Dreadnought Battleships of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. A single battleship sent Goeben running back to Constantinople with her legs tucked in between her legs.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, having pride in your country is a good thing, and so is being proud of your country's history, but don't let it go to your head to the point that you alter how it suffered it's defeats and mis-fortunes in the past.
#69 2:52pm 27/09/07
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Vietnam was not a war about fighting for one's country. Vietnam was a war were a whole lot of people died for no good reason. And it is not someone's civil duty to die half way across the world because their president decided to get them involved in a messy conflict. If a facist state is marching down the street, burning everything in their path, okay.
But Vietnam was never necessary, and so the draft dodgers did nothing wrong by refusing to go and die.[/QUOTE]
Um...I refer you to my above post in which I stated that Vietnam was but a battle in the scope of a larger war against Communism. The South Vietnamese asked for our aid in defending their nation against a wave of Communist aggression, and aggression made possible by Chinese and Soviet arms and funds. Our problem was that we, as in Iraq, did not go in with overwhelming force.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]And while I agree that some protesters might have mistreated soldiers, to tar everyone with the same brush is simply foolish.[/QUOTE]
I agree, tarring everyone with that statement would be wrong, and was not my intent. I was simply making an observation that was characteristic of the movement as a whole.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]Likewise, whereas some might have broken laws, that does not automatically make them traitors nor does it mean all did so. Americans broke many laws during the Revolution, yet I see no tarring of your entire nation for that little stunt.[/QUOTE]
Whether the American Revolution was morally right or not is something about which I have not come to a conclusion. I think at the point at which all other possible avenues have failed, then I agree, lawbreaking is necessary. However, I am not convinced that in either case all other avenues had been followed.
[QUOTE=Demosthenes X]As for that, don't hold your breath. I suppose no one ever taught you that violence begets violence? Or you haven't noticed that there are more terrorists in Iraq today than there were in 2003? You cannot destroy terrorism - as long as there are disaffected people who turn to violence terrorism will exist. And violence is not an answer, because it simply proves that the terrorists have the right idea. If you invade a sovereign nation, it tells them that violence is a solution.[/QUOTE]
Hm...violence begets violence. Perhaps, in some situations. I agree, there are more terrorists there now than in 2003. Good. More for us to kill. At least they're attacking us there and not here, on our own soil. And if you noticed, the terrorists increased only after the media and our our 'loyal' Democrats began screaming for Bush to bring the troops home. In fact, one might even say that our apparent willingness to pull out (read, weakness), emboldened the terrorists.
And, in case you didn't know, removing Sadaam from power was an operation planned by the Clinton administration. Not the Bush administration. Just FYI.
And violence is the answer, in this situation. It is the only thing fundamental Islamic terrorists understand, and it is the only way to beat them. You cannot win the hearts and minds of a people that thinks your nation is the Great Satan.
#68 12:49pm 27/09/07
Holy shit... I never thought I'd say this willingly.. but... I agree... with Drayson...
<<<12345>>>