
you guys are going way off topic

JustKill wrote:AvAlAnChE1 wrote:JustKill wrote:Lol america sucks they lost only 200k soldiers and you guys are that mad?
What about Russia? they lost 14million of soldiers and more than 10million of civilians they killed 80% of the german army russia did the job not America.
Actually the weather is what farked the Germans the most. Not Russian soldiers.
actualy the russian soldiers was getting recruited frmo kids 15-45 stalin said to never go back or you will get killed by an officer there the winter helped much maybe but the courage and the atrocity of the russian soldiers to
AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.
user wrote:AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.
more like a gun and a handful of bullets between 2 soldiers
USSR was still industrialization its production force and shortages were common
AvAlAnChE1 wrote:user wrote:AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.
more like a gun and a handful of bullets between 2 soldiers
USSR was still industrialization its production force and shortages were common
Oh I knew I forgot something, yeah. One soldier shoots, other has about like 5-10 bullets.. If the soldier with the gun dies, the guy with the ammo takes over and visa versa. Not to mention they sent out "soldiers" into the battlefield with NOTHING so they had to run to a dead comrad and steal their weapon/ammo.

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Either way, your argument fails.
I love it when someone is wrong and they start pointing out grammar mistakes like it makes a difference to the main argument at hand.

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:One soldier shoots, other has about like 5-10 bullets.. If the soldier with the gun dies, the guy with the ammo takes over and visa versa. Not to mention they sent out "soldiers" into the battlefield with NOTHING so they had to run to a dead comrad and steal their weapon/ammo.
[SD]happynoobing wrote:well, desperate times calls for desperate measures. u have to look at the circumstances at the time. russia neither had the industrial capability nor the national security US had back then. time was almost non-existent for them. germans were literally 1 step away from taking over moscow, they didn't have the luxury of giving 6 weeks of basic infantry training before putting new recruits to the frontline. im sure US would get rather desperate as well if the nazis were at the door step of washington DC.
Reise wrote:This is actually something they over-dramatized in Enemy at the Gates. I don't think there was ever an instance where Russia sent soldiers into battle with nothing but a clip of 5 rounds. Yes there were human waves, but they were equipped.
satman83 wrote:Phaidra wrote:It was the day America FINALLY got off there arses and did something to help during the war, before that they just sat back and watched millions die.
no...no they didnt, in fact they were helping the war effort for a while, using cruise
liners and passenger ships to ferry over supplies and much needed refile to England,
and even after they lost 100's of ships to German U boats they kept on sending over
ships even at the expense of 1000's of lives.
IMO that was a part of their strategy to enter the war, why the ****'d they send ships which take forever to cross the sea and take way more men to run when they could have simply sent a plane?
Reise wrote:IMO that was a part of their strategy to enter the war, why the ****'d they send ships which take forever to cross the sea and take way more men to run when they could have simply sent a plane?
At the time, moving freight over the ocean was the most efficient and effective way to do so. Good luck moving anything like tanks or artillery in an airplane that runs on props.
AvAlAnChE1 wrote:JustKill wrote:AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Actually the weather is what farked the Germans the most. Not Russian soldiers.
actualy the russian soldiers was getting recruited frmo kids 15-45 stalin said to never go back or you will get killed by an officer there the winter helped much maybe but the courage and the atrocity of the russian soldiers to
Who the hell said that was effective? That means that Russia were morons putting those type of KIDS out there.. Not to mention killing off the "Cowards".. then blame nations like America for not helping. Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.

Barotix wrote:I believe they went as low as 12. Mind you; those combatants were not conscripts

Barotix wrote:AvAlAnChE1 wrote:JustKill wrote:
actualy the russian soldiers was getting recruited frmo kids 15-45 stalin said to never go back or you will get killed by an officer there the winter helped much maybe but the courage and the atrocity of the russian soldiers to
Who the hell said that was effective? That means that Russia were morons putting those type of KIDS out there.. Not to mention killing off the "Cowards".. then blame nations like America for not helping. Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.
I'm not siding with JustKill or anything, but before, during, and a little after the civil war [IIRC] America also used young adults in their military. I believe they went as low as 12. Mind you; those combatants were not conscripts [excluding Fuhrer Lincoln's case of mass conscription].
I'm not siding with JustKill or anything
AvAlAnChE1 wrote:True, but back then America was just starting to become established and they did not have the same morals as they had during WWII.

Reise wrote:IMO that was a part of their strategy to enter the war, why the ****'d they send ships which take forever to cross the sea and take way more men to run when they could have simply sent a plane?
At the time, moving freight over the ocean was the most efficient and effective way to do so. Good luck moving anything like tanks or artillery in an airplane that runs on props.

Reise wrote:IMO that was a part of their strategy to enter the war, why the ****'d they send ships which take forever to cross the sea and take way more men to run when they could have simply sent a plane?
At the time, moving freight over the ocean was the most efficient and effective way to do so. Good luck moving anything like tanks or artillery in an airplane that runs on props.
whatta wrote:wow w.w.III russia vs. others, chill out guys this is HISTORY i mean all happened before you born, a japanese can be friend with a american. Imo big power = bullying. This is nature's law powerful survives right? but i can't find any reason for civil deaths @ england (in ww2 ger.) @iraq (us) @ vietnam (us), @japan (ww2 us) etc. there will be always massacres in world but todays bully is as you all know america i hate america's politicy (not americans).We have 2 fresh example afghanistan and iraq and we all can see it always goes worse... i wonder what would you do if you are not american but iraqi.
Snoopy wrote:I don't think Russia is a weak country. However, I do think there are countries far stronger than them. People often consider them a lot stronger than they are due to their large land area.
On Topic: This thread has gone all over the place, and to be honest I'm kind of confused.
I just want to say, I think that if USA didn't intervene when they did many more lives could/would have been lost.My two-bobs worth.
JustKill wrote:Snoopy wrote:I don't think Russia is a weak country. However, I do think there are countries far stronger than them. People often consider them a lot stronger than they are due to their large land area.
On Topic: This thread has gone all over the place, and to be honest I'm kind of confused.
I just want to say, I think that if USA didn't intervene when they did many more lives could/would have been lost.My two-bobs worth.
damn i have to explain itagain? america didnt help russia there was 10% of the german soldiers on the front with france russians soldiers after the kursk battle was day after day pushing the germans till the rhin valley by 1943 germany was already losing with help or no russia was gonna win the war we even had soldiers in the west because we wasnt sure japan would attack or not.

JustKill wrote:Snoopy wrote:I don't think Russia is a weak country. However, I do think there are countries far stronger than them. People often consider them a lot stronger than they are due to their large land area.
On Topic: This thread has gone all over the place, and to be honest I'm kind of confused.
I just want to say, I think that if USA didn't intervene when they did many more lives could/would have been lost.My two-bobs worth.
Damn I have to explain it again? America didn't help Russia because 10% of the German soldiers on the front with France. Russian soldiers after the Battle of Kursk were pushing the Germans to the the Rhin Valley. Which by 1943 Germany was already losing with help or no Russia was gonna win the war we () even had soldiers in the west because we weren't sure Japan would attack or not.
JustKill wrote:us sent tanks ? i wonder why i never seen an american tank in any video of history or video about stalingrad the weapons that russian soldiers had was only PSSH And mosin nagant rifle there was no american weapons there -_-
