We like to brag about our D-Day, our victories at sea in the Pacific, our Gettysburg.

Folks, we ain't done shit. We've lucked out by fighting at the tail end of the toughest war of the modern era.

And before you try to get upset over pride (im not trying to say we HAVENT fought tough battles here)...

Go read about the Carpathian War during WWI, and then get back to me.

Holy shit.

11/30/2005 4:01:43 PM

you cannot be serious

11/30/2005 4:03:26 PM

um

we fought and won ww2 on 2 fronts

one front from start to finish

against people that were fanatical to the death

you sir, don't know shit

11/30/2005 4:07:48 PM

i think i get what he's trying to say...

i mean, yeah, the eastern front of WWI was fucking hardcore.

but to say:

Quote :

"Folks, we ain't done shit."

is incorrect.

11/30/2005 4:24:50 PM

actually the spartans at thermopylae were the tough ones

11/30/2005 4:28:35 PM

ahahahhahahahhahaha

talk about an unfair example

11/30/2005 4:31:49 PM

mootduff was at thermopylae

he consensually raped every spartan there


they were in to that sort of thing

11/30/2005 4:33:23 PM

o he's talking about WWI. Yea, too bad the Germans were gonna march straight into Paris in 1917, taxicabs be damned.

11/30/2005 4:36:13 PM

Quote :

"actually the spartans at thermopylae were the tough ones"

hahah. indeed

11/30/2005 4:42:19 PM

ok, this was phrased badly. the only point i meant to make is this: we have never fought tooth-and-nail, in conditions that extreme, and lost as much as Austria-Hungary and Russia did. Russia lost 3.5x as many CAVALRY as we lost soldiers in the current Iraq war.

I didnt mean to take anything away from winning WWII on 2 fronts, that was definately a greater accomplishment. Yeah, I really overstated saying we hadnt done shit, that was dumb for me to say. But we have not fought in conditions that extreme, for that long of a period. I was just really taken back by reading accounts of this. Those guys that survived that had fucking balls. And this was a "modern" war, too. Damn.

Just reading about how guys were scared to leave any position for fear being eaten by one of the many packs of wolves, damn. they were fighting each other and nature.



[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2005 5:53:45 PM

we have technology and we use it

take WWII for example. No a-bomb = alot of death for us. Also the first iraq war. GPS is a bitch.

11/30/2005 6:13:27 PM

well, this technology didnt exist then. plz to refer to the revised 2nd entry. not trying to take anything away, i was just shocked by the brutality of this battle i hadnt read about till now.

11/30/2005 6:23:21 PM

WHATS THIS OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE WARS TOO?

11/30/2005 6:24:43 PM

11/30/2005 6:55:06 PM

Quote :

"the only point i meant to make is this: we have never fought tooth-and-nail, in conditions that extreme, and lost as much as Austria-Hungary and Russia did. Russia lost 3.5x as many CAVALRY as we lost soldiers in the current Iraq war."

Don't know about the wolves, but the Civil War was pretty darn tooth-and-nail. After all, one America did lose that one.

11/30/2005 11:18:16 PM

so because we fought smarter and didn't lose as many soldiers as the russians, austrians, or hungarians - we "aint done shit"?

only a liberal....

11/30/2005 11:21:18 PM

Quote :

"Russia lost 3.5x as many CAVALRY as we lost soldiers in the current Iraq war."

Wait...so they only lost like 7,000 cavalry? I would have expected it to be a much higher number.

As it ever occured to you that we don't have to fight tooth and nail because we fight semi-competently? I haven't seen anyone accuse the Russians or the Austrians of doing that. The Russkis lost eight metric shit-tons of troops every time they did anything.

12/1/2005 12:26:12 AM

Quote :

"The Russkis lost eight metric shit-tons of troops every time they did anything."

Give three examples.

Quote :

"so because we fought smarter and didn't lose as many soldiers as the russians, austrians, or hungarians - we "aint done shit"?"

Or maybe it's... I don't know... the fact that 80% of Germans died on the Eastern front fighting one country, whereas 20% died on the Western front, in Africa etc fighting a shitload of countries.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 12:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2005 12:30:37 AM

^how exactly does this rebut his quote?

12/1/2005 12:47:46 AM

WWI was pretty fucking bad. Remember, in the first few months the US faught in WWI, the US got its ass kicked until the latter portion of the Meuse-Argonne. Germany was worn down by the time the US entered. Technology used to kill mass numbers of people was introduced in this war of attrition, yet battlefield techniques and medical care were still in the freakin' stone ages.
Also, the Eastern Front was even worse than the Western. Americans don't think much about WWI becauses its not a major cornerstone in our history like it was in Europe where there are still reminders of a war 90 years ago.

But to say that the US hasn't done shit- thats crazy talk. The US essentially took over the Pacific and Western Europe, probably one of the greatest feats in history.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 1:19 AM. Reason : :]

12/1/2005 1:17:45 AM

its really hard to compare, we havent fought in a situation similar to this.

austrian units would go out and noone would return b/c they were either killed, wounded and eaten by wolves, or they froze to death. warfare wasnt any more brutal than other ww1 battles, but this was mountain terrain and sub-zero temps. just an unbelievable story.

also, russia traditionally goes for numbers over skill. before 1861, they were fighting with mostly an unskilled, peasant army. also keep in mind, they hadnt fought the russo-japanese war too long before, and the balkans war was in 1912 or so, too. they were battered by this point, and an eventual withdrawal due to the revolution was inevitable.

i reatract the "we aint done shit" comment, that was silly of me to say, it took damn good management to take two theaters in ww2.



[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 1:38 AM. Reason : ,]

12/1/2005 1:34:16 AM

Quote :

"the fact that 80% of Germans died on the Eastern front fighting one country,"

that'd be a real nice arguement if they had been killed by the russians, and not the russian weather...

don't blame our boys for having the sense to fight in good weather...

12/1/2005 8:14:30 AM

umm, Korean War, anybody?????

12/1/2005 8:19:44 AM

Quote :

"that'd be a real nice arguement if they had been killed by the russians, and not the russian weather..."

Huh?

Quote :

"^how exactly does this rebut his quote?"

You mean, how come it's only natural that one country that fight top 80% suffers more casualties than 4 countries (and then some) fighting the bottom 20%? I don't even know how to begin to explain this to you.

Quote :

"also, russia traditionally goes for numbers over skill. before 1861, they were fighting with mostly an unskilled, peasant army. "

Please to back this up with some data. As in

War - Russian casualties - Opponent's casualties.

P.S. Before 1861 Russia had a selective draft, where some peasants were forced to serve for 25 years. As in "Of your village you're going to the army for life. Pack your shit." It was not a volunteer army, but it was a professional army.

Please to learn your shit.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 8:59 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2005 8:43:40 AM

Just for fun let's assume that the one country that took out 80% in the beginning killed all the untrained people and the 4+ countries that took out the other 20% at the end were left with battle hardened, trained killers or they had to fight an army that was better equipped with new technology.

You might want to interject some time into that equation also. For example it took country A Y months to kill 80% of the German army. Countries B, C, and D, killed the other 20% in Z months. For all I know it may have taken Russia 5 years to get that 80% and the 3+ countries minus the USA the same amount of time to get 15% and with the USA a few years to get the other 5%. Who knows. Why don't we make a chart that shows what percentage of the German army was killed by which country on a per month basis weighted by a factor of technology each country had at the time. This all seems like a silly my daddy can beat your daddy debate to me.

^While you are big on calling out people to provide data how about backing up the 80/20 claim yourself. I'm not saying I doubt it, I'm just saying it would be nice to see the stats in order for you to avoid a bit of criticism.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 9:15 AM. Reason : -]

12/1/2005 9:06:05 AM

in the grand scheme of things, the us hasn't don't shit.

we didn't appear as a world power until after WWII.

oh and this quote

Quote :

"Yea, too bad the Germans were gonna march straight into Paris in 1917, taxicabs be damned. "

Is so full of shit.

12/1/2005 9:21:18 AM

^^ You made a statement. Back it up.

Quote :

"This all seems like a silly my daddy can beat your daddy debate to me."

Exactly.

- Everybody knows your daddy sucks.
- Uhm, why now?
- How about you prove he doesn't?
- How about you go fuck yourself?

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2005 9:27:56 AM

^Wow. You could have just said "I made everything up", but ok.

12/1/2005 9:39:29 AM

Quote :

"Give three examples."

Certainly.

1) WWII, where Russia lost 10,600,000 dead to Germany's 5,500,000 (total, so really only 80% of that). When the other guy is killing you at a rate of more than 2:1, it means you are fighting incompetently at some level. Either you didn't buy good guns (stupid), or your strategy is horrible.

2) Russo-Japanese War, where you outnumbered the other guy 5:1 and managed to lose at a rate of almost 2:1, not to mention having your navy annihilated.

3) WWI, where you managed to have all of 18,000 fewer dead than German, which was fighting a considerably more difficult two front war, and you only did that at the cost of starving so badly that the country imploded, went commie, and sued for peace.

Quote :

"Or maybe it's... I don't know... the fact that 80% of Germans died on the Eastern front"

OK, so with 100% of the Soviet Union's forces fighting 80% of Germany's (and Germany having fewer people to begin with), you still managed to lose guys at a rate of more than two Russians to every German?

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 9:54 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2005 9:53:39 AM

^Well one of the reasons for that is because as a Russian you'd get shot by your own people if you retreated.

12/1/2005 10:28:58 AM

Quote :

"WWII, where Russia lost 10,600,000 dead to Germany's 5,500,000 (total, so really only 80% of that). When the other guy is killing you at a rate of more than 2:1, it means you are fighting incompetently at some level. Either you didn't buy good guns (stupid), or your strategy is horrible."

Over one million Russians were killed alone at Stalingrad over 6 months. I wouldn't necessarily call that incompetence. They were simply going to defend that city (I mean come on -- Stalin would off everyone if they didn't) no matter the cost of lives.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 10:49 AM. Reason : g]

12/1/2005 10:49:14 AM

^ also the fact of possible military planning ineptitude and inadequate weapons and weather problems only means that the ones still standing after the dust settled on both sides (the germans for being outnumbered and the russians for all the reasons above) were tough as shit.

12/1/2005 10:55:51 AM

Quote :

"so because we fought smarter and didn't lose as many soldiers as the russians, austrians, or hungarians - we "aint done shit"? only a liberal...."

Hey, as a liberal, I wholeheartedly disagree with what he said. Plain and simple, we got the job done. When we arrived in WWI, we took care of business. In WW2, we fought in Europe and the Pacific, and won both. In war, you don't get points taken off for the time you were involved.

12/1/2005 10:56:10 AM

WWII:

The worst estimate for Russians is 10,000,000. Most sources say it was more like 8,500,000 compared to 4,500,000 to Germans. So it's less than 2:1. Russian casualties include **at the very least** hundreds of thousands captured in the first months of the war.

Russia-Japan:

Russia: 42,700
Japan: 86,000

You're probably counting only specific battles, aren't you moron?

WWI:

Russia: 1,811,000
Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey on the Russian front: ~1,650,000

Russia in 1913 was at the height of its economic power. You don't know shit again, idiot. And yes, there were strong antiwar sentiments, which is a proof of what again?


At this point, I could already direct you to do what you may do best, i.e. march on the brickyard. But just to complete the picture:

Northern war:

Russia: 120,000 (worst estimate)
Sweden: 150,000

Russian-Turkish wars of the 18th century

Russia: 200,000
Turkey: 200,000

7-year war

Russia: 60,000
Prussia: 200,000 (all fronts not just russian... further specifics are unknown)

War of 1812

Russia: 350,000
France: 500,000

Crimean war

Russia: 153,000
Great Britain, France, Turkey: 156,000

Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878

Russia: 110,000
Turkey: 80,000

Quote :

"MathFreak: Shut the fuck up"

Quote :

"MathFreak: You don't know shit"

12/1/2005 10:56:19 AM

The whole premise of this thread is silly, but...

I don't know where this entire Russia bashing started. The fact is that the Russians stopped two of the greatest armed forces in the last three hundred years: the vast armies of Napoleon and Hitler's Nazi war machine. Yes, they used the weather and terrain to their advantage, but it's not like Napoleon and Hitler didn't know that it got cold in Russia during the winter, that the Russians were somehow magically immune to the snow, or that the invaders could not have predicted the slash-and-burn techniques that were employed. Yes, both war cost an insane amount of casualties, but the fact is that Russia is still an independent country and never lost its sovereignty in either invasion despite overwhelming odds. The Russians may not have had the technological edge in WWII or the tactical genius in the Napoleonic Wars, but they fought an impressive strategic war given all the disadvantages they had given the resources available at the time.

As for the Americans, we ain't done shit because our history is very short. When you're an older civilization, you've got a longer history of warfare from an era where massive human casualties were more the norm. If our Republic is still around in another two to three hundred years, I'm sure we'll have a few more nasty battles chalked up.

12/1/2005 11:06:26 AM

I want to see where these numbers came from, other than just, "Well, he's from Russia so he must know more." I just got mine from a quick glance at Wikipedia and another site; what makes yours better? (Tell you the other site when I have time to find it)

Quote :

"Russia in 1913 was at the height of its economic power."

Well, apparently "economic power" does equal "having food."

Quote :

"So it's less than 2:1."

Not by a whole hell of a lot, Sputnik.

Quote :

"Russia: 1,811,000 Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey on the Russian front: ~1,650,000 "

So you're telling me that you lost more guys even though you only had the one front? I agree.

Quote :

"Russia: 350,000 France: 500,000"

Oh, so when it's France that has a shit ton of enemies lined up against it, you don't mention that, huh?

I also love how you think that your record against Turkey is impressive.

12/1/2005 11:10:14 AM

Quote :

"I don't know where this entire Russia bashing started. "

How about... I don't know... the whole Cold War thing? Just a guess...

P.S. ^ Go march on the brikyard, shithead. I'm done with you.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2005 11:10:58 AM

What is this? A pissing contest?

12/1/2005 12:53:05 PM

Quote :

"so because we fought smarter and didn't lose as many soldiers as the russians, austrians, or hungarians - we "aint done shit"? only a liberal...."

I would guess the biggest contributing factor to our relatively low deaths is that we haven't shared a border with a country we were at war with, in modern times.

But, I wonder what our deaths/deployed compares to Russia or other countries during WWI/II.

In Iraq now, I think that number is around 2-3%.

12/1/2005 1:02:43 PM

don't feed the trolls

12/1/2005 1:05:47 PM

hope a ww2 vet kicks your spoiled behind.

12/1/2005 1:14:46 PM

I have never marched anywhere near the brickyard, and I don't intend to start any time soon, and certainly not under your orders.

Cutting and running with "I'm done with you" isn't going to make you any more right. Look, Russia has accomplished some amazing (good) military feats, and I'm not saying that we're tougher. We haven't cut our teeth in anything remotely like Stalingrad or Leningrad. And no doubt there have been competent and brilliant Russian military commanders -- I've heard Zhukov described as being Patton, Montgomery, and Eisenhower rolled into one.

But let's not try to act like you've got a shining military record, and if you are going to try to act like that, at least back it up with something other than numbers pulled out of your own ass that, even if they are right, seem to support my position half the time.

12/1/2005 5:42:06 PM

glad to see you're completely a mouthpiece for the right, even about an apolitical topic

"cut and run"

come on.

12/1/2005 5:53:34 PM

I'm sorry, what else do you call it when a guy in an argument has a little tantrum and says, "I'm not talking to you anymore."

12/1/2005 5:59:26 PM

12/1/2005 6:15:08 PM

Well if two countries fight each other with shitty technology then they will be put to the test with grid iron fighting. We wont let ourselves be put in that position. And if we are on a battle front, I would hate to be on the other side of a brigade of marines!

12/2/2005 8:12:47 PM

Well no not exactly. We won WWII in four years because Russia joined our side. If they had joined the Axis side then the entire makeup of the war would have been different with a hard to gauge outcome.

However, to downplay US military might is rediculous. American industry created military supplies at a rate the world had never seen before, matched only by the sheer brute force of the Red Army.

12/2/2005 8:17:15 PM

Quote :

"Yes, they used the weather and terrain to their advantage, but it's not like Napoleon and Hitler didn't know that it got cold in Russia during the winter, that the Russians were somehow magically immune to the snow, or that the invaders could not have predicted the slash-and-burn techniques that were employed."

Hitler should have known about napolean's fortunes w/ the Russians, dipshit. Oh, and IIRC, slash and burn was practically invented by the russians against napolean...

Seriously, the Russians only managed to defeat Hitler and Napolean due to two things:
1) Cold weather
2) Throwing a shitload of troops at them.

Anyone should be able to win when they can do those two things.

12/4/2005 10:09:10 PM

Russia's army was just far enough outside of Moscow to make a fast strike as soon as the French army was camped out in the city, FWIW.

12/4/2005 10:13:20 PM

i haven't really read this thread, but i'll just say that we haven't had to be tough, because we've (A) been really good and (B) been geographically isolated


i mean, we've had our drafts, and WWII kinda cramped our style, but not THAT badly relative to what some other countries have endured

but i think that we could man up if we needed to. i hope so, anyway.

12/4/2005 10:46:56 PM