Return of the legions

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol, since Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles and commited genocide towards "inferior" races breaking all human morals what made the Brits think he'd obey some silly little law limiting the size of Naval combatants?

When a World War erupts the losing side will not obey any international laws, Geneva Conventions etc. won't mean jack. It may be useful in peacetime and small conflicts here and there, but in an all out war people will do just about anything to stay alive.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you know how long it takes to build a ship of that size? When Hitlers intentions became known, and he failed to back down ('39), the ship was already sailing, having been reported as being smaller than it was.

The Genocide was not known about then, and that 'silly little law', was to stop a massive arms race which would bankrupt countries. (Starting with the launch of HMS Dreadnought). Therefore when it was clear that Germany was flouting those laws, it was too late. We had the King George V class as a counter, but those were not running effciently until 1941.

Addtionally, when dealing with the Western Allies, the Germans observed virtually all of the Geneva convention rules. They helped injured enemy soldiers, treated POW's well, and followed the etiqeutte of war correctly. So yes the 'Rules did mean Jack'. The Germans knew if they treated our men badly, we would do it to theirs as well.

The war in the East was another matter however......

[zverushka 0]

LOL!

Was there any war other than in eastern europe? the western european front was a joke. A huge amount of allies agaisnt a couple of hitler youth.

On the eastern front, the Germans raped where they pleased, no need for a brothel, they burned down villages, tortured and executed POWs, and killed innocent civilians, all because they had an inferiority complex and wanted to think russians as inferior beings. Because of what they did there, I'd say the germans were inferior beings back then. Lacking in intelligence, compassion or anything. Just some illiterate farmers from east frisia.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zverushka @ Nov. 25 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL!

Was there any war other than in eastern europe? the western european front was a joke. A huge amount of allies agaisnt a couple of hitler youth.

On the eastern front, the Germans raped where they pleased, no need for a brothel, they burned down villages, tortured and executed POWs, and killed innocent civilians, all because they had an inferiority complex and wanted to think russians as inferior beings. Because of what they did there, I'd say the germans were inferior beings back then. Lacking in intelligence, compassion or anything. Just some illiterate farmers from east frisia.<span id='postcolor'>

wtf is the point of a post like that? Yes, the USSR got the shitty end of the deal, but dismissing the western front like that is pretty ignorant, and is going to result in:

a) a flame war

b) thread closed

or most likely

c) both

[Badgerboy 0]

Quite Tovarish, plus if I was him I wouldn't go there, the Soviets commited the largest mass rape policy in history on their march to Berlin.....

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 25 2002,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quite Tovarish, plus if I was him I wouldn't go there, the Soviets commited the largest mass rape policy in history on their march to Berlin.....<span id='postcolor'>

Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but you should look at that in the context of the 20 million Soviet casualties. They were understandably pissed and were going to take any revenge they could.

[Badgerboy 0]

Both sides committed unspeakable atrocities against each other, and I think its best to leave it at that. And no, two wrongs do not make a right.

[Harnu 0]

The US has plenty of Aircraft. Stealth, Raptors, Fighters, Bombers, etc.

Also the monster Abrams. Got the new M1A2's to kick some ass.

Infantry, we can just send the Marines, they are basically the best landforce for the US.

Navy, We got a lot of Carriers, we can give the rest of you a ride to the warzone

[Sam Samson 0]

gotta walk softly, harnu.

all that superiority didn't help the supersoldiers in primitive mogadishu.

it's not just the equipment that money can buy. it's the brains behind the whole show that makes the difference.

some nations are just better at certain things than others.

I'm interested in seeing who does what best.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Nov. 24 2002,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Belgium make very good guns Darklight. Chocolate and guns, what a combination  <span id='postcolor'>

Hehehe

[zverushka 0]

Srry guys, I got pissed when someone said that the germans followed the geneva convention.

BTW.. the russians dind't make the biggest mass rape policy, the Germans did, the rape in berlin stopped after 3 days when some officers were shot for raping, then everyone got scared.

[Sam Samson 0]

GUYS!

rape is not a condoned military tactic in nato. we don't need to go into who was the worst.

for me: if it was 1944 right now and you would stick the nazis and the communists into one sack together, and would start beating on it: you would always hit the right one!

so there.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW.. the russians dind't make the biggest mass rape policy, the Germans did, the rape in berlin stopped after 3 days when some officers were shot for raping, then everyone got scared.<span id='postcolor'>

zverushka, the policy I speak of was actually sanctioned by Stalin and STAVKA right up until the end of hostilities. Look up the order concerning 'Trophy Women'.

Besides, note that I said the Geneva convention was followed in GENERAL, but only in the WEST. I made it clear that the Eastern front was a different matter. Then your average soldier not only had to contend with the SS, and Hitler, but also the NKVD and Stalin, who were just as bad.

[Supah 0]

I think we should get russia to join NATO They have some pretty good airplanes too and some good transport planes. Nato REALLY lacks a C-5 type plane of its own (Read: Not based in the US and which may not be available because the US needs them themself) Like NATO bougth AWACS aircraft together and crews them together we could buy like C-5's or the russian equivalent. Lets not devellop our own because everything devellop in the european union has the tendency to lag behind 10 years from the start :S We could even buy our own Aircraft carriers like this, otherwise we would depend heavly on france and im thinking they didnt build them just so the rest of NATO could play around with them.

[Balschoiw 0]

why buy ?

We can exchange them like it is done already with weapon systems within NATO. So you gimme Carrier and get 10 Leo 2´s  

Germany has both . East and West type units. Due to the fall of the wall the weapons of NVA fell into our hands: Mig´s, T80´s...

Unfortunally we were not allowed to keep them all.  

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 26 2002,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gotta walk softly, harnu.

all that superiority didn't help the supersoldiers in primitive mogadishu.<span id='postcolor'>

okay, so you too saw the movie "blackhawk down" and want to act smart in saying that not even technology could save soldiers in somalia. but, last time i checked, they accomplished their mission. nobody said that going into a 100% hostile environment in the middle of the daytime was safe, but it had to be done, and it was done--successfully.

i agree, harnu. not to sound arrogant or anything, i mean i havent served with foreign countries, but are there any other units that can compare to those of the US? that is, aside from various special operations units? i watch that show on techtv about the fighting machines or whatever its called where they take like 4 vehicles from various countries and compare them, and it seems to me that the US is always given the highest rating, even though the show itself is run by... i think its run by the UK, but im not positive. i mean i know training can compensate for a lack of technology as well, but US troops are trained well for their specific tasks.

either way, i dont think that countries "specializing" in a specific area would be a good idea. each country needs to be diversified in their military force, and through this diversity they can train with other countries to benefit and make us all stronger. like how different countries get together and do air force training together, or marine training, or any other branch. by seeing the pros and cons of different countries, we can all learn new techniques and that will make us ALL stronger, both individually and as a whole.

[Supah 0]

Well to be honest no there arent much foreign units in europe to rival the US's. But one thing that comes to mind is funding. The US is a large country thus has a lot of tax payers and there for lots of money to spend on their armed forces. A country like the netherlands has 15 million inhabitants and unless we all give 80% of our wages to the government and drop all our other armed forces we couldnt even afford one super carrier let alone its air group and support ships So its not the rest of the world is unable to have forces that well trained and equiped but most of the world cant afford them Which may actually be a good thing

[DarkLight 0]

Why is it that i always see some hatred against the Russian soldiers that fought during WW2.

You people should be thankful that they were able to stop such a huge invasion. Without them, the allied forces wouldn't have been able to rescue europe. A huge amount of men died while trying to stop the Nazi forces.

So why disrespect them so much?

Sheesh...

[Badgerboy 0]

It's not that I'm grateful, I'm just fed up with the Soviet forces in WWII being regarded as 'the good guys'. In my personal opinion, Stalin was worse than Hitler. He killed far, far more of his own people than anyone else during WWII.

Both sides commited sickening atrocities, but the Soviets were never held accountable.

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 27 2002,03:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 26 2002,16<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">gotta walk softly, harnu.

all that superiority didn't help the supersoldiers in primitive mogadishu.<span id='postcolor'>

okay, so you too saw the movie "blackhawk down" and want to act smart in saying that not even technology could save soldiers in somalia.  but, last time i checked, they accomplished their mission. nobody said that going in... humdihum...<span id='postcolor'>

well, buddyboy, I didn't see the show. I also don't rely on hollywood for my after-action analysis.

but I did read mark bowden's book. and I have been to africa. (not on vacation. )

believe me, I'm the last one to put down US SF personnel.

but in mog the force protection measures were a joke, i.e. in giving the enemy visual access of the compound. (their hangar's doors wouldn't close. )

the city sloped and their base was at the bottom of the slope. (crazy. think of the uncalculable sniper threat. )

the general officer discounted the mortars coming at the base from the city. in the end they resulted in several deaths and injuries. (would you want to sleep under a thin sheet roof, knowing a mortar could break through at any minute? )

and lining soldiers up against a mere tin wall to wait for their slop, while cars (bombs) can be parked along the outside is not wise either.

I don't fault the kids. it's some of the officers that worry me.

so behind all the brawn you still need a brain.

...

sure the US can fight two regional wars at once and do everything by itself. that's been standard doctrine forever.

but - as supah pointed out - at least in europe forces might start to specialize, if for no other but monetary reasons.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 27 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both sides commited sickening atrocities, but the Soviets were never held accountable.<span id='postcolor'>

Neither were the British, the Americans, the French or any other allies. The atrocities that Stalin comitted was mostly on his own population and therefor not interesting at that time in an international perspective. The British & American bombings killed far more people in Europe minus Soviet then Stalin ever did.

The winner sets the rules, it is as simple as that.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the general officer discounted the mortars coming at the base from the city. in the end they resulted in several deaths and injuries. (would you want to sleep under a thin sheet roof, knowing a mortar could break through at any minute? )<span id='postcolor'>

That was one of my first impression when I got to that huge camp. I went into my tent that was heavily fortified with sandbags nearly 180m high and each tent had it´s own shelter cause of the mortars. I asked why the tents have so many holes and the other soldiers told me that I will see at night. At night several mortars bumped the Airfield wich I was "sleeping" very near at. So the shrapnels went through the tent leaving some more holes.

It was always like this:

Mortar or gunfire,Kiowa from USS Inchon that was hovering over the camp the whole day and night tracking source of fire and handing over data to circling Apache. Apache went in, sent Rockets or gunfire into town and it was calm for the next hour. Than the procedure started again. I really got mad with the officers that decided to put the camp on such an exposed spot, but I guess they wanted to block the harbour and have minimum distance to sea based forces.

I have some nice pics of the plane and helo dump in Moga. That was really "United nations" as all kind of military planes and Helos that were shot down or had technical fails were just put on a large dump.

As for the hollywood funstuff: FORGET IT !

They never showed cut off heads lying in the mine grave every morning. Gives you a good feeling after breakfast, when you enter your station and have to clear the grave where weapons, mines, body parts, charges were put in overnight.

Furthermore I did not experience any of that crappy heroism in any mission I took part in. Put this to fiction and movies but be assured reality is very different.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The atrocities that Stalin comitted was mostly on his own population and therefor not interesting at that time in an international perspective<span id='postcolor'>

For example, of the 95,000 men of the 6th army that surrendered at Stalingrad, just over 1500 came back. Secondly, keeping POW's 10 years after the war was over in slave labour camps is also illegal. As a matter of fact, even Lenin himself condemned it.

The fact that Stalin killed so many of his own people makes the amount of war crimes as a percentage pale, but they were commited none the less.

Denoir, yes the British and American bombing killed many, but not as many as the Red Armies retribution attacks against civilians and unarmed soldiers. Both are wrong, but I fail to see the rape, looting, executions, and torture committed by the airmen that the SS, and the NKVD forced upon people.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 27 2002,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The atrocities that Stalin comitted was mostly on his own population and therefor not interesting at that time in an international perspective<span id='postcolor'>

For example, of the 95,000 men of the 6th army that surrendered at Stalingrad, just over 1500 came back. Secondly, keeping POW's 10 years after the war was over in slave labour camps is also illegal. As a matter of fact, even Lenin himself condemned it.

The fact that Stalin killed so many of his own people makes the amount of war crimes as a percentage pale, but they were commited none the less.

Denoir, yes the British and American bombing killed many, but not as many as the Red Armies retribution attacks against civilians and unarmed soldiers. Both are wrong, but I fail to see the rape, looting, executions, and torture committed by the airmen that the SS, and the NKVD forced upon people.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, no matter what, at least 12 million men died while fighting. That's a lot more than the 6 million jews that everyone keeps talking about. All the things the Russian soldiers did were probable also done by the Allied forces. Hell i've seen some videos of Belgian soldiers executing their own men because they looked like they were deserting. Most of them weren't deserting at all, they just didn't fight as good as some people wanted them to. I'm not afraid to say this, and basically i only say this about the Belgian soldiers cuz i know that if i'd say that American soldiers executed innocent ppl, everyone would start bashing me "because i'm a US hater".

Every damn army has executed innocents, every country has killed men for nothing.

Every nation has killed a huge amount of innocents. Not only Russia. I'm very thankful for what they did, if they hadn't fought back, the allied invasion probable would have been a disaster.

Oh well, i said what i wanted to say, going back on topic now...

[Badgerboy 0]

!

Do you know how many people Stalin killed?

Frankly the Russian soldier was buggered.

If you retreated : Shot

If you get injured and fall back : Shot

Mentioning that enemy equipment is slighty better than your own : Shot

Liberated Russian civilians : Shot - They were supposed to become partisans.

Liberated Russian women 8 - 80 : Raped, then shot or Gulag (they too should have become Partisans)

Liberated women who were raped by Germans - Shot or Gulag

I could go on for quite a while. And that was before they got ino German land. The Western Allies never commited atrocities on such a large scale.

Who do I blame for this? Stalin, plus the fact that alot of the Russian soldiers were not brought up in the traditional military way. Soldier ethics (Protecting civilians, etc), were not instilled into the Soviet troops. Therefore a 2 year drunken rape/murder campaign was seen as just. You can read interviews, where old veterans proudly admitted they raped and killed, as it was there right as soldiers of the motherland. Don't people see something wrong with that?