| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
Norway - 2 months Yugoslavia - 12 days Greece - 24 days Belgium - 18 days Netherlands - 7 days France - 1,5 month France and GB back then were both empires. All those countries combined dwarfed Germany in terms of GDP and military numbers. And yet not only they were beaten but Germany almost manged to KO Soviet Union. All of the above ilustarates my point, that thinking about war only in terms of GDP or military budget is wrong. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
On June 15 2022 17:59 Silvanel wrote: And yet "somehow" Germans during WWII run over most of Europe. Budget is just one, of the many variables contributing towards the end result of the war. Germany in 1939 had a larger military budget than France, the UK and Poland combined. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18464 Posts
On June 15 2022 21:39 Silvanel wrote: Denmark - 6 hours, Norway - 2 months Yugoslavia - 12 days Greece - 24 days Belgium - 18 days Netherlands - 7 days France - 1,5 month France and GB back then were both empires. All those countries combined dwarfed Germany in terms of GDP and military numbers. And yet not only they were beaten but Germany almost manged to KO Soviet Union. All of the above ilustarates my point, that thinking about war only in terms of GDP or military budget is wrong. I agree with you, but you have to admit that all those armies, except perhaps France, were horrifically outdated and absolutely unprepared for a 20th century war. Both Belgium and Netherlands at least depended almost entirely on a defense strategy that ignored the existence of tanks or an airforce. In the case of Belgium, the Germans simply drove their tanks over the "untakable" line. In the case of the Netherlands they mostly ignored the ground war in favor of using paratroopers to take/incapacitate the few airports that NL had and then carpet bombing Rotterdam and threatening to do the same to Amsterdam. The Netherlands thought they were well prepared to defend the country against Germany. They probably would have been if it was still 1918. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Everyone knows French long term plans require independence from the US and thus a counterbalance from countries like Russia, but their diplomats and politicians are professional enough to know that they need to respond to the situation at hand. Can't really begrudge them from trying to keep some cards on the table as long as they're still playing ball. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17851 Posts
Forces and resources of the European combatants, 1939 In September 1939 the Allies, namely Great Britain, France, and Poland, were together superior in industrial resources, population, and military manpower, but the German Army, or Wehrmacht, because of its armament, training, doctrine, discipline, and fighting spirit, was the most efficient and effective fighting force for its size in the world. The index of military strength in September 1939 was the number of divisions that each nation could mobilize. Against Germany’s 100 infantry divisions and six armoured divisions, France had 90 infantry divisions in metropolitan France, Great Britain had 10 infantry divisions, and Poland had 30 infantry divisions, 12 cavalry brigades, and one armoured brigade (Poland had also 30 reserve infantry divisions, but these could not be mobilized quickly). A division contained from 12,000 to 25,000 men. It was the qualitative superiority of the German infantry divisions and the number of their armoured divisions that made the difference in 1939. The firepower of a German infantry division far exceeded that of a French, British, or Polish division; the standard German division included 442 machine guns, 135 mortars, 72 antitank guns, and 24 howitzers. Allied divisions had a firepower only slightly greater than that of World War I. Germany had six armoured divisions in September 1939; the Allies, though they had a large number of tanks, had no armoured divisions at that time. Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II/Forces-and-resources-of-the-European-combatants-1939 So, Germany had roughly the same size of military as 3 countries combined. They also had superior training, tactics and equipment. Russian military is about a third of what NATO has and is technologically decades behind for the most part (not even counting training, tactics and organization where NATO has Russia beat on all accounts). There is simply no way that Russia can stand against NATO in a conventional war (US alone could probably end Russia within a week). If anything the comparison should go the other way around: NATO = WW2 Germany and Russia = WW2 Russia before lend lease (they would be beaten by Germans if not for US aid). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On June 15 2022 23:03 JimmiC wrote: How much bigger is the Russian military than the UA one? And how come they couldn't blitz them? It took some time for the NATO help and they still couldn't do it. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments, and we have had a few. Do people really think Russia could take on NATO in a conventional war? Have you not seen the US/UK/France navy and air forces? Why do you think Russia keeps bringing up nukes? Hint, because they know they would get stomped in conventional and want to continually remind of MAD. Because it would be a stupid move. Why fully push into the second largest military in Europe when you can play to your strengths, which is what is currently happening (except perhaps the opening stages of this conflict.) UA air support is next to nothing, and their artillery does not match up to that of RU. Over the past several months, RU has focused on destroying supply lines, disabling artillery, and continuously shelling UA positions. All they really have to do is patiently chip away (although some people here have mentioned them being at risk of running out of ammunition, which I genuinely doubt,) then overwhelm the crippled defenses of said position. Rinse and repeat. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
rapid advancement causes the goverment and army to collapse. Russia have traditionally favoured high-risk high-return strategies like the one we saw in the early days of the war. When it works, it looks like the most natural and obvious thing in the world. When it fails, it looks like the most overconfident, idiotic and obvious thing in the world. Interestingly, considering your discussion regarding Germany and ww2, their doctrine were also based around higher risk/return than the allies, due to their eventually smaller army size and highly professional soldiers. They needed to be more flexible. The blitz attacks are an example of their high risk/high return doctrine. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On June 15 2022 23:39 JimmiC wrote: Which is what all the strategists have been saying since the start, that if the blitz failed they would go into their meat grinder move and the only defense would superior artillery which NATO has but Ukraine currently does not. My point was that if Russia could not blitz Ukraine they were certainly not going to do it to any or even crazier all NATO countries. Comparing them to WW2 Germany is horrible, Italy would be closer. In a conventional war if they were fighting NATO they would need China to come help everywhere and then eventually be overwhelmed by the bigger budgets and more advanced weapons. It makes no sense to see that Russia failed the quick strike (quite spectacularly) against the Ukraine and is now winning a super slow artillery fight and think, hmmm bet they could take on all of NATO. Like you have be really drinking that Russian propaganda Koolaid to believe that. It's a good thing I didn't say anything about taking on all of NATO, simply pointing out the current circumstances. It doesn't appear that UA has much of a chance unless there is large-scale intervention (not just sending a couple tanks and rocket systems, as the majority of that aid has shown pretty much no effective difference.) | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Russia has a massive manpower and equipment superiority around Severodonetsk, they're trying to gain ground for a month in exchange for losses in equipment and manpower which they cannot sustain. UA is engaging to drain their reserves so that they can use their recruitment advantage to counterattack, which they successfully did near Kharkiv and seem to be doing near Kherson. While more reserves are coming into play on the UA side, Russia seems to be mixing and matching old BTGs, leading to low morale and more dead generals. The big "but" though is that UA needs tanks, IFVs, artillery and AZD to attack without unsustainable casualties. And ammo and fuel for all of that too. The sooner the better because even low daily casualties mount up (and civilian casualties too under RU controlled areas). NATO can win against RU in a conventional all out war but a) it's hard for nato to fight past the giant area denial fortress called Kaliningrad and b) NATO needs to now prepare for the war of a decade from now: it's more electronic or the denial of it, it's more dependent on algorithms and AI, less manned... We're lagging behind in R&D, let alone industrial spending. Apparently if you don't by from companies in years, they don't keep their production lines open... | ||
KwarK
United States44381 Posts
On June 15 2022 21:48 Biff The Understudy wrote: Germany in 1939 had a larger military budget than France, the UK and Poland combined. It also conquered France with Czech tanks. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1967 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17851 Posts
On June 16 2022 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote: Everything I have read un the last two weeks seems to indicate that Russia is now winning quite quickly. They did gain a little ground but they've also lost some. The problem they're facing right now is that most of the ground they took was in the lowlands and before them now there are fortified hills which will be a much tougher proposition. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1967 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
But I can't say that the situation is stable, Ukraine could perhaps lose some ground at some point. I just wouldn't recommend anyone bet on it. And in regards to Russia winning the war, I don't think there's any chance of that at all considering the snail's pace at which the fronts are shifting (there's basically 99% no movement for weeks). Russia is going to lose this war eventually, it's only a matter of when, and how much will be lost on both sides. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On June 16 2022 01:35 JimmiC wrote: Not a chance of what? Keeping control of all Ukraine? I think it is very unlikely Russia can get past the eastern part. As for whether or not Ukraine can get back all of their land that is a different question and I think will take years to sort out. Correct, keeping control of all of Ukraine and/or stopping Russia from taking the rest of it's Eastern/Southern regions. It really depends on what RU actually wants out of this conflict, but everything east of Dnipro seems like a solid guess to me. The sanctions are going to have continually a bigger and bigger impact. Not just militarly but also on public support many of the products they are not longer being suppied for example are just running out now. The pinch will get tigher and tighter on everything. Some people think that China will rescue them, and maybe they will, but both China has their own issues and they will not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. How do you think the mighty Russians will feel about bending the knee to China? Which supplies, specifically, are running out? The west will keep supplying Ukraine. If anything it will just be more and more. One issue has been the length of time to train, the longer this goes the less that matter. Also global food shortage and Russian sea blockade is going to be a perfect excuse for others to get involved. There is already talk of NATO escorts. Which could also greatly help resupplying Ukraine and the escorts would also have get the product to the ports and safely onto the ships. NATO escorts sounds like a convenient way to bring other nations into the conflict, which could possible in turn lead to large-scale intervention. That much I can imagine. The people declaring victory after Russia was pushed from Kiev was premature. Those declaring Russia has won are premature. Those saying Russia might take on and beat NATO are crazy, and that was what I was referring to. Indeed, declaring victory while shells are still flying in both directions is stupid. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
