Why is Al-Quada bombing Turkey?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Both sides were weary of the fighting, but Stalin just in Europe Stalin had a 2+ to 1 advantage in troops. on top of those numbers the Russian military, by 45, was quite easily exceeded the capabilities of the German army at it's height. In other theatres Stalin had an even greater advantage in Ground troops. In terms of air power the allies had the advantage technologically, but it's arguable that would have been enough to carry the day against the sheer numbers of Russian combat aircarft.
I can't believe I have to explain this.
Let's say the russia army DID have an overwhelming amout over the USA and UK. They had nothing of a fleet. So they could hold Europe while the USA and UK bombed the crap out of them. Admit it, they russians had less than a 10% chance against the USA and UK.
Let's say the russia army DID have an overwhelming amout over the USA and UK. They had nothing of a fleet. So they could hold Europe while the USA and UK bombed the crap out of them. Admit it, they russians had less than a 10% chance against the USA and UK.
Air force was actually quite abit overrated in ww2... only in clsoe groudn supplort was it effective. German war production tripled from 42-44. Us and western allied bomber force would have been largely inneffective against the immense ground force the soviets had deployed... I think the soviets had no chance of holding on to western eurpoe once conquered... But they had a good chance to overrun the western allies had the war suffered a twist of fate in spring 45...
I doubt the germans had 80 % or so of their land force fighting the russians for no reason... So I think the figure of 2x the allied ground force is pretty conservative... more like 4x...
I doubt the germans had 80 % or so of their land force fighting the russians for no reason... So I think the figure of 2x the allied ground force is pretty conservative... more like 4x...
Why are we talking about Russia now?
Let's get back to the original topic.
When will Al-Quada hit Australia directly?
If/When they do what would be the main target? We have nothing in Australia but canyons and red rocks. Sydney oprah house is just a silly boat, why would they target something so small?
Let's get back to the original topic.
When will Al-Quada hit Australia directly?
If/When they do what would be the main target? We have nothing in Australia but canyons and red rocks. Sydney oprah house is just a silly boat, why would they target something so small?
pax said:
Pax, you are high. A small air force would not of had much of an effect but the USA could send waves of over a THOUSAND bombers each. A city could be leveled in one strike. The USA could do this every day. I take back what I said earlier. Russia had less than a 1% chance.
And the high altitude bombers were only good against cities... they were very imprecise and likely useless against a large but dispersed ground force.
Even cities needed 3-4000 bomber raids and it was still inneffectual against german war production. And russian industry was way out of range as well as many if not most of its cities.....
Even cities needed 3-4000 bomber raids and it was still inneffectual against german war production. And russian industry was way out of range as well as many if not most of its cities.....
Not sure what 'al-quaeda' will do next... I get the feeling any radical muslim group or individuals can instantly be linked or claim links to al quaeda as a boogeyman to help its own cause when they commit acts fo terror. I dont they have anywhere near the level of organisation we think they do.
Attacks in aussiland are likely to be by local muslim fundies who are sympathetic to osamas cause in a general anti western way... Doesnt mean they planned anything with them or ever had contact with the groups in afghanistan...
Attacks in aussiland are likely to be by local muslim fundies who are sympathetic to osamas cause in a general anti western way... Doesnt mean they planned anything with them or ever had contact with the groups in afghanistan...
pax said:
The USA war production has huge. We could afford to send thousands of bombers in waves to bomb stuff. If we got into it with Russia it would of even grown MORE. Can you imagine 10,000 bombers a day dropping explosives on Russian targets? So what it if most missed. A 10% hit ratio would of been overwhelming.
The USA could of targeted square miles. And killed everything within.
You have to take into account a large russian air force as well... large aa defenses... and the fact the US at the time fielded a lot of its forces in the pacific... Its not so much that the US couldnt eventualy defeat the soviets, I think they could, it just would have taken time... Assuming no nukes at least 2-3 years ... I think the russians would have been psychologically stomped by the use of nukes in the fall of 45 at the latest... Possibly summer if the US had defered its japan campain to concentate on the russians. But I think the russians had more than fair chance tween may of 45 and august-fall of 45 to take western europe...
Ive googled a bit and just for some numbers... the russians were fielding 2500 t34 main battle tanks alone each month... The entire german war machine never exceeded 330 tanks a month tho they were very capable machines...
Ive googled a bit and just for some numbers... the russians were fielding 2500 t34 main battle tanks alone each month... The entire german war machine never exceeded 330 tanks a month tho they were very capable machines...
with conventional ammunition your right. But using either th A/H bomb would make accuracy a thing of the past. Destroying their major cities and polluting their major water supply would devaste them.pax said:
later,
epic
Well definitley and I think use of the bomb at the latest in fall of 45 would have beaten the russians if only psychologically to get them to surrender as well.
But the bombs were hard to make at the onset and in startegic terms couldnt have won the war in 45 assumign no pscyhological impact (which is nutty at this point I know) asfew of them could be made at that point... The small fission bombs I dont think could have been delivered to most large russian cities and I dont think could have been significant in the field in 45... youd need a few dozen at least on the huge and long russian front... But I do need to read up on the b29's range...
I had read a long time ago that after nagasaki the us had no more plutonium or enriched uranuim to make more bombs right away but would have had to wait a few months...
H bomb only came into being in the 50's... Im only looking at the short may-august 45 window in this little speculation of ours hhe...
But the bombs were hard to make at the onset and in startegic terms couldnt have won the war in 45 assumign no pscyhological impact (which is nutty at this point I know) asfew of them could be made at that point... The small fission bombs I dont think could have been delivered to most large russian cities and I dont think could have been significant in the field in 45... youd need a few dozen at least on the huge and long russian front... But I do need to read up on the b29's range...
I had read a long time ago that after nagasaki the us had no more plutonium or enriched uranuim to make more bombs right away but would have had to wait a few months...
H bomb only came into being in the 50's... Im only looking at the short may-august 45 window in this little speculation of ours hhe...
Patton didn't think that was the case, did he? The US infrastructure would be almost intack from any Soviet attack while our bombers could very well attack their infrastruture and supply lines virtually starving any chance they would have. Now having the A-bomb or technology also would make a defeat for the US very remote. The A-Bomb required enriched U-235 which for us at the time took about a year to yield 3 bombs. Plutonium wan't even available on the planet until breeder reactors where constructed converting U-238 into Plutonium-239 by neutron absorption and beta minus decay. The destruction and havoc brought about by WRII was probably much more pressing then starting another war with the Soviet Union. Europe was a complete mess.
ByteMe said:
Been there lately? In what way(s) is Europe a mess?
Killer symbolic attacks are what terrorists are after, the sydney harbor bridge, or the opera house would both be prime targets. Heck maybe even something in canberra.
It had absolutely nothing at all to do with that.
Look at Winston, he started making grumblings about the soviets and what happened the UK dumped him for someone new. No civillian wanted to keep fighting, and sheesh try telling the public "Our ally we have been fighting together with has overnight become our enemy and now we must fight them" Yeah that will go over well.
All you have to do is look at the casulty numbers and you will see the soviets would need a huge advantage in numbers and even then would lose.
edit:not just civillians wanted to quit fighting so did most who were doing the fighting (which had been civillians b4)
Heathen said:
As the allied high command at the time realised they didn't stand a chance against the Russians what makes you think you could have done any better?
It had absolutely nothing at all to do with that.
Look at Winston, he started making grumblings about the soviets and what happened the UK dumped him for someone new. No civillian wanted to keep fighting, and sheesh try telling the public "Our ally we have been fighting together with has overnight become our enemy and now we must fight them" Yeah that will go over well.
All you have to do is look at the casulty numbers and you will see the soviets would need a huge advantage in numbers and even then would lose.
edit:not just civillians wanted to quit fighting so did most who were doing the fighting (which had been civillians b4)
viscount said:
First of all, cup of tea anyone??? jesus some people are irritable...
To stay on topic...
Well then that's not what thousands of immigrants (mostly illegal) say about the country...
And i'm sorry to say, i worked in an Immigration Law Firm for 2 years, so i can say i have seen a fair amount of proof to say that Turkey is not all candies like you make it seem. 90% of the clients (Dont work there anymore) were Turkish.
Unless you're saying that all those thousands of Turkish (Kurdish) immigrants are lying... Which of course would be a different issue.
I've seen the effects first hand, what r your qualifications? even if u were Turkish in Instanbul, the general consensous from my (former) clients was that Turkish people would get rid of all the Kurds (Turkish National) in a split second if it were up to them....
so much for democracy...
chavvdarrr
Veteran
2 Those who feel sorry USA did not sent "waves of thousand bombers" in order to kill more russians .
FYI
Russia lost 20mln peoples during WW2. ~ 3/4 of them were civilian casualties
At the end of WW2 in wetern europe Russia had more than 5000 air-fighters - yak's, & Mig's & Lagg's (not sure about their english names)
Which compared to american and english fighters were with smaller range and better maneuvarability. With better and more skilled pilots. More motivated too (Stalin's orders were "do or die").
Do you care to give some facts about how many "fortresses" usa had? How many fighters? What was the casualty ratio in a common fighter-bomber fight?
Even old Me-109 were able to down 2-3 fortresses when heavily outnumbered.
IMHO just in weeks USSR would get complete air-fight control.
A-bomb was what holded Stalin from pressing ahead.
And lets just stop talking about KILLING MORE, lets talk about how to PREVENT KILLINGS.
I just wonder why I wrote this... some people just never learn from history
FYI
Russia lost 20mln peoples during WW2. ~ 3/4 of them were civilian casualties
At the end of WW2 in wetern europe Russia had more than 5000 air-fighters - yak's, & Mig's & Lagg's (not sure about their english names)
Which compared to american and english fighters were with smaller range and better maneuvarability. With better and more skilled pilots. More motivated too (Stalin's orders were "do or die").
Do you care to give some facts about how many "fortresses" usa had? How many fighters? What was the casualty ratio in a common fighter-bomber fight?
Even old Me-109 were able to down 2-3 fortresses when heavily outnumbered.
IMHO just in weeks USSR would get complete air-fight control.
A-bomb was what holded Stalin from pressing ahead.
And lets just stop talking about KILLING MORE, lets talk about how to PREVENT KILLINGS.
I just wonder why I wrote this... some people just never learn from history
Similar threads
- Locked
