The United States...

*BBB* ZERO · Post by *BBB* ZERO » Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:46 pm

I personally think the U.S. would wipe the floor with China. Maybe not wipe the floor with them, but I think we would win.

NorthernComfort · Post by **NorthernComfort** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:55 pm

We could bomb them into oblivion, but we could never really conquer China.

It's a good thing personal opinions on who would win don't decide the outcome of wars, eh?

AdmiralKnight · Post by **AdmiralKnight** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:13 pm

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="353736"]I personally think the U.S. would wipe the floor with China. Maybe not wipe the floor with them, but I think we would win.[/quote]

Really. So, what do you think China, or for that matter, Russia, or any one of the dozen or so other countries that have nuclear capabilities will do when you start attacking them? (I say you, because since you're so adamant about how strong the US military is, I'm assuming you're in it, and willing to actually go FIGHT a war against any of these countries). Three or four well placed nukes... and well... who cares whose army is stronger? That End of the World flash that I'm sure everyone's seen already, pretty much sums up how any fight between major powers will go.

McDoofus · Post by **McDoofus** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:08 pm

I have to agree with BBB on this issue, it's kind of said to read some of you other guys' statements.

You try and put conditionals on reality: "Well, if the US didn't have blah blah blah and the Frenchmen from the 1600's could have yada yada yada...." Nonsense. The fact remains, that the US army, in it's current state, is far superior than any other military force in history, in their most advanced state. That's what BBB said, and that is correct.

If you're trying to tell me that just because an army a couple billion years ago completed pwned everyone at that time, and now it can easily take out the US, I will laugh at your ignorance.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:22 pm

Perhaps the US Military could pwn any other military force in a toe-to-toe bashing contest with nukes banned, but on the battlefield of total war its already been proven that we're pretty far from the strongest. We've been hit hard by blows we're not willing to throw, and open for another blow.

We can outbomb anyone, drop gigatons of explosives or field large numbers of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers and heavy armor ... But what will we do if someone releases smallpox? What will we do if terrorists open fire with automatic weapons in malls and playgrounds and churches, randomly? When people are afraid, because civilians aren't safe, because we're at war ... when we use our democracy to push on the US to pull back, do we have the mightiest army?

Remember when we beat the Brits in the Revolutionary War? They were one of the most powerful conventional armies at the time, too, and we certainly weren't "pwned".

Makh · Post by **Makh** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:59 pm

[quote="peter-griffin";p="353474"]And while many people comment on the Russian monolith that fought the brunt of the Germans, they, at the same time, completely underestimate the massive toll that American and British planes had on German war production..[/quote]

The German army was already in our soil, British bombing was not very high in 1941. 4 million soldiers entering our land in 24 hours is pretty hard to stop at the beginning, for any army in the world. It was a betrayal. Yes British bombing was helpful but it did not stop the 4000 tanks already in Soviet Union. To prevent further bombing, they built many factorie in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="353474"]Had the German industry gone unharassed throughout Germany's conflict with Russia, it is rather hard to say whether the Russians would've been able to make substantial territorial gains after the battle of Stalingrad (given a Russian victory here, et al), since Manstein's backhand offensive could've been that much more successful with even 80 more tanks.[/quote]

Our production was higher than German since 1942 with the restoration of the Ural and the northern Volga industrial complex. In 1943, German needed to convert most of their factories into military complex. We had rationing ? They had to do it too

. And when your country start to have rationing for food, you know that the war is harder than expected.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="353474"]Could the Russians have fought an unrestrained Germany? Could they have beaten the additional 500,000 Germans stationed from Norway to the Pyrennes, and later from the Pyrennes to the Alps? Would the Russians have been victorious had the fifth and sixth SS Panzer divisions been fighting in Russia? I sincerely doubt it.[/quote]

My friend, what the hell do you talk about your fifth and sixth panzer division ? Do you know what we had on our front ? 500 000 soldiers seems like a very large number for me. You talk about ALL the occupation forces in western Europe ? You can not send those men Peter Griffin, you need them you occupy and pacify resistance. Use statistics correctly if you use them.

I see you are interested in the Second Great War Peter Griffin. But I suggest you to stay vigilant when you speak about facts regarding our front. Do not limit yourself with statistics to explain what happened on the Soviet front. There are many other factors you have to be aware of. Realize that this side of the war was not ordinary. It is on this side that you learn how savage, brutal, inhuman and soulless can be a man during a war. I am off topic (as always) but some things need to be clarified directly.

Now sorry if my syntax is bad.

*BBB* ZERO · Post by *BBB* ZERO » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:32 pm

We've been hit hard by blows we're not willing to throw, and open for another blow.

Which are?

But what will we do if someone releases smallpox? What will we do if terrorists open fire with automatic weapons in malls and playgrounds and churches, randomly? When people are afraid, because civilians aren't safe, because we're at war ... when we use our democracy to push on the US to pull back, do we have the mightiest army?

We bomb the hell out of them. We prevent that from happening before hand.(which is what Bush is trying to do now by the way.) And, yes!

Remember when we beat the Brits in the Revolutionary War? They were one of the most powerful conventional armies at the time, too, and we certainly weren't "pwned".

They marched in one big group and wore red with white Xs on their uniforms. We hid behind rocks and surprised them. They might have had the greatest Navy at the time, but obviously not the greatest army.

McDoofus · Post by **McDoofus** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:59 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="353879"]But what will we do if someone releases smallpox? What will we do if terrorists open fire with automatic weapons in malls and playgrounds and churches, randomly?[/quote]
Sure, we aren't perfect, we aren't immune to everything that could possibily happen. But pointing out strategies to get around our military doesn't mean that it isn't the strongest around. Your said situations could happen to any country, it's not like there's some kind of flaw in the US military alone that would allow for those things to happen.

Dark Nexus · Post by **Dark Nexus** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:12 pm

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="353927"]We bomb the hell out of them. We prevent that from happening before hand.(which is what Bush is trying to do now by the way.)[/quote]

And failing miserably, from the looks of it... Terrorists attacks at their highest levels in YEARS, and the government's own 9/11 panel indicating that the war in Iraq may well have led to Al Qaeda getting BIGGER. Sure there have been successes, but overall things have gotten WORSE.

Wonderful tactic, that bombing the hell out of them.

Dancing Fire Monkey · Post by **Dancing Fire Monkey** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:22 pm

StruckingFuggle makes some good points, as does McDoofus.
Being able to over-power smaller armies, out maneuver larger ones, and fielding a (more or less) mobile fighting force that is arguably the best equipped and funded in the world today by no means makes us invulnerable.

Individual terrorists, under a loose affiliation of other like-minded men and women who are prepared to give their lives in exchange for the lives of a dozen "Enemy" civilians, or release a bio-agent that could cripple an entire city, are very, very hard to fight against. Especially with a conventional army.

However, a conventional war against an established enemy with set boundaries and objectives. (Such as the Gulf War or WWII) is simply America's bread and butter. It's familiar territory for us, and we happen to be very good at it. We “pwn” one might say.

Hmm... that’s a little more long winded than I meant to be.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:39 pm

Right, DFM. That's sort of what I said. But what I also meant to say is that there are no more "conventional wars against an established enemy with set boundaries and objectives", anymore.

I'm curious what people's definitions of "mighty" are, personally. If you need to constrain the definition to a single sort of battle to be consider mighty, when other people are using attacks outside the definition of that, it's hardly mighty - its more like impotent.
We devestated Iraq - and yet, correct me if I'm wrong, but since we won the "conventional battle", military casualties have been higher ... that's might?

Your said situations could happen to any country, it's not like there's some kind of flaw in the US military alone that would allow for those things to happen.

Oh, I agree. I never said it was something unique to the United States. But if you have poor defense - offense alone, especially only partially effective - won't bring you victory, and being unable to win is hardly mighty.

They marched in one big group and wore red with white Xs on their uniforms. We hid behind rocks and surprised them. They might have had the greatest Navy at the time, but obviously not the greatest army.

/me watches his point whissh right over Zero's head ...

Which are?

The World Trade Center. The (granted, this is Spain) bombing of a train station. What do you think would happen if an explosion ripped apart LAX or O'Haire or La Guardia, killing several hundred or more?
I can't bring a bomb into an airport? It might be hard, but I doubt its impossible.
Or there's the previous comment about hitting random, more "insignifigant" targets that no one expects. Do you think its impossible? Do you think it wouldn't hurt us, if it happened? Are we going to start doing stuff like this, fighting on their terms?
(Here's a cheat sheet: no, yes, and no.)

Halo: Combat Evolved is very much a blatant lie and marketing hype. However ... 'Terrorism: Combat Evolved' might be very much true (see and now that I've said that, go back to my Revolutionary War comment and maybe you'll understand it.)

Dancing Fire Monkey · Post by **Dancing Fire Monkey** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:51 pm

StruckingFuggle, you're absolutely right.

I hope I didn't imply that there were still "conventional wars against an established enemy with set boundaries and objectives" (at least involving the United States) anymore. I said that only to explain my thoughts on the hypothetical "U.S. vs Country X" scenario.

Terrorism: Combat Evolved is absolutely right as well, sad as it makes me.

I just hope that this doesn't mean the U.S. has to evolve into something more dangerous and radical than the terrorists we're trying to combat just to survive another 200 years.

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:00 am

(see and now that I've said that, go back to my Revolutionary War comment and maybe you'll understand it.)

Not bloodly likely...

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:21 am

Aaah, alright. Gotcha, DFM.

And yeah, I worry too about what might have to be done to survive in the modern world.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:58 am

The German army was already in our soil, British bombing was not very high in 1941. 4 million soldiers entering our land in 24 hours is pretty hard to stop at the beginning, for any army in the world. It was a betrayal. Yes British bombing was helpful but it did not stop the 4000 tanks already in Soviet Union. To prevent further bombing, they built many factorie in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.

Do you know what the greatest complaints among German armor leaders were? A lack of spare parts. The industry wasn't able to supply enough spare parts fast enough.

The 4 million Germans that participated in Operation Barbarossa moved so fast that their transportation vehicles were worn out, especially because of the rough terrain they were driving on due to a lack of roads in many parts of Russia. The British bombing effectively negated several hundred tanks that were in need of, say, a new transmission.

Czechoslovakian factories weren't able to produce enough to match the industry of the Ruhr valley, Berlin, and other industrial powerhouses bombed into pieces by the western Allies. Polish factories were mostly used to create guns for the infantry (many were Gehwehr and Mauser factories) and not ammunition, food, tanks or spare parts for armor.

Our production was higher than German since 1942 with the restoration of the Ural and the northern Volga industrial complex. In 1943, German needed to convert most of their factories into military complex. We had rationing ? They had to do it too . And when your country start to have rationing for food, you know that the war is harder than expected.

I never said your production wasn't higher, I was saying that had German industry been completely unharassed for the entire war, many more tanks, guns, miscellaneous equipment, etc. could've been fielded. Serious parts of the German industrial might were destroyed by Allied bombers; without these bombers, had Germany made even 80 more tanks, Manstein's famous "backhand offensive" in '43 after Stalingrad very well could've eliminated much more than it had, slowing or altogether stopping the Russian repatriation of lost soil.

Farm collectivization had meant the need for rationing long before the war had even started on the Eastern Front. The Germans didn't introduce strict rationing until December of '43, whereas the Russians had instituted it in '36.

My friend, what the hell do you talk about your fifth and sixth panzer division ? Do you know what we had on our front ? 500 000 soldiers seems like a very large number for me. You talk about ALL the occupation forces in western Europe ? You can not send those men Peter Griffin, you need them you occupy and pacify resistance. Use statistics correctly if you use them.

Ah, so you look down your nose at me with this:

see you are interested in the Second Great War Peter Griffin. But I suggest you to stay vigilant when you speak about facts regarding our front. Do not limit yourself with statistics to explain what happened on the Soviet front. There are many other factors you have to be aware of. Realize that this side of the war was not ordinary. It is on this side that you learn how savage, brutal, inhuman and soulless can be a man during a war. I am off topic (as always) but some things need to be clarified directly.

And then you question the role the fifth and sixth SS Panzer Divisions had? Operation Wacht Am Rhein, involving 400,000 Germans from crack armor brigades, was fought by the 5th/6th SS Pz Divisions, largely regarded as elite units.

The Germans deployed 150,000 Germans along the Atlantic wall along the English channel alone, with 300,000 men in reserve for those groups - these were not elements of the occupation force. An additional 250,000 men guarded the coastline from positions in Norway that were only 100 miles from Murmansk, running farther south all the way to Dunkurk. Guarding the beaches from Brest (Western Brittany) down to the Pyrennes against the Bay of Biscay, 100,000 Germans manned the entrenchments, and an additional 100,000 Germans guarded the stretch of Vichy French coastline from the Pyrennes to the Alps along the Mediteranean (these men fought especially well, in vein, against Operation Dragoon).

So sorry, I underestimated that; 800,000 Germans guarded the entire western front. But without a threat from the Allies, those 800,000 men would've fought in the Eastern Front. A massive force indeed, could the Russians have dealt with these men, too?

Real Life Forums

The United States...

Who is online