Author Topic: Questions Thread  (Read 65755 times)

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.900
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #30 on: 09-01-2013, 23:01:35 »
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)
OK, so Kursk campaign wasn't even the biggest. I'll change it to "very big". But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?

I think Mudra once said the Kursk battle was the largest single tank battle ever, but the Battle of Brody was bigger but lasted longer...

posted below


That's not a infantry, that's crew members sticking out of the turret hatches.


And if you count the entire Kursk CAMPAIGN, it's still not the largest, as Brody and others still are greater than it.  Kursk was multiple battles and fronts across hundreds of kilometers of ground, it was never some singular battle.  THe syntax issue comes from the pop history version of the word "battle" and the more technical military history correct term battle, which refers to a set of skirmishes or combat that focused on a small area of land for limited objectives.  For instance, the Battle of Arnhem is a single battle, of the Market Garden Campaign.  But the battle of normandy is actually a large assortment of battles that make up the Normandy Campaign.  A more correct terminology for Kursk would be the Kursk campaign, which would include all combat along the salient plus the russian post-Prok/Ponryi Station counter offensives.

Offline PanzerKnacker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.909
  • Tommyjäger
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #31 on: 09-01-2013, 23:01:05 »
After that, only local victories with no effect on the constant Soviet advance, AFAIK
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.837
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #32 on: 09-01-2013, 23:01:48 »
Yep and also more and more battles were the germans had greater casualties then the Russians.  Not all tough.
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline PanzerKnacker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.909
  • Tommyjäger
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #33 on: 09-01-2013, 23:01:43 »
Bullshit!

Korsun-Shevchenkovsky offensive (24.1. - 16. 2. '44)
Germans : Soviets
30 000 : 80 188

Second Battle of Smolensk (7.8. - 2.10. '43)
250 000 : 451 466

Lower Dnieper Offensive (24.8. - 23.12. '43)
1 200 000 : 3 968 000

Battle of Narva (2.2. - 10.8. '44)
68 000 : 480 000

Crimean Offensive (8.4. - 12.5. '44)
84 819 : 96 700

Operation Bagration
399 102 : 770 888

Lvov-Sandomiercz (3.7. - 29.8. '44)
136 860 : 289 296

Battle of Tannenberg Line (25.7. - 10.8. '44)
10 000 : 170 000

Debrecen Offensive (6. - 29.10. '44)
35 000 : 117 360

Vienna Offensive (2. - 13.4. '45)
86 000 : 18 000

Battle of Berlin (16.4. - 2.5. '45)
320 000 : 361 367

Battle of Halbe
35 000 : 20 000

Prague Offensive (6. - 11.5. '45)
850 000 : 52 498
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline Lightning

  • Dreamcrusher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.517
  • FH2 Dev
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #34 on: 10-01-2013, 00:01:57 »
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?
Prokhorovka is generally considered to be the largest tank battle of World War 2. The problem is what encompasses a battle. Since the term has no clear definition, the 'biggest battle' is also a bit of a vague term.

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?
On the southern front of the Kursk salient, the Germans broke through the main Soviet lines and advanced north. To stop them, the Soviet armoured reserves were called in and the two tank armies clashed at the village of Prokhorovka. While the Soviets lost many more tanks and men they did succeed in stopping the Germans and therefore the battle is technically a Soviet victory. So no, the Germans did not win Prokhorovka.


But was Kursk the decisive defeat for Germany in the east or not? I mean, after that the Germans never gained much terrain in the USSR anymore, right?
That is certainly a strongly debated topic among historians. If you go by ground gained, I would go as far as to say Stalingrad was the turning point in the east. The only ground gained after Stalingrad was the area around Kharkov and then the tiny amount taken during Operation Zitadelle, which was then immediately lost when the Soviets took to the offensive. Of course, you can also look in terms of offensive potential. Germany certainly managed to gather quite a lot of forces for Zitadelle. If the Soviets didn't already knew the Germans were going to attack at Kursk, this force may have done some serious damage. After Kursk, no large scale offensives were undertaken in the east. And finally, you can look at industrial potential. The Soviet Union certainly had more industrial potential than Germany, so really Germany's only shot at victory was a quicky blitzkrieg victory during Barbarossa. When Barbarossa failed, they pretty much lost the eastern front. Pick one you like. I always fancy Stalingrad the turning point, because it's closer to the other turning points of World War 2 (which I consider Midway and El Alamein), but of course those are subject to your own interpretations as well.

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #35 on: 10-01-2013, 01:01:44 »
Yup Stalin or his Generals wanted Berlin so bad that they just threw away some thousands more of their men to get it faster.

Battle of Berlin (16.4. - 2.5. '45)
320 000 : 361 367
Afaik Berlin saw the Soviets lose about 360.000 men (dead) and Germans lose 92.000 (dead) - not counting wounded. The high loss numbers Theta0123 is propably referring to are the German soldiers captured, because by 1945 there were encirclements everywhere.
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.190
  • Traction Wars Developer- Research Dept
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #36 on: 10-01-2013, 06:01:23 »
If I say Prokhorovka was the biggest tankbattle of WWII that's wrong, right? But when I call it Kursk-campaign, is it still wrong?

And Prokhorovka was won by Germans and the campaign by the Soviets, right?

(These questions are to make sure I'm not gonna teach 3rd grade wrong stuff, and since I read all those articles posted by Kelmola on Prokhorovka, I got a bit confused)

I think Mudra once said the Kursk battle was the largest single tank battle ever, but the Battle of Brody was bigger but lasted longer...

posted below


That's not a infantry, that's crew members sticking out of the turret hatches.


And if you count the entire Kursk CAMPAIGN, it's still not the largest, as Brody and others still are greater than it.  Kursk was multiple battles and fronts across hundreds of kilometers of ground, it was never some singular battle.  THe syntax issue comes from the pop history version of the word "battle" and the more technical military history correct term battle, which refers to a set of skirmishes or combat that focused on a small area of land for limited objectives.  For instance, the Battle of Arnhem is a single battle, of the Market Garden Campaign.  But the battle of normandy is actually a large assortment of battles that make up the Normandy Campaign.  A more correct terminology for Kursk would be the Kursk campaign, which would include all combat along the salient plus the russian post-Prok/Ponryi Station counter offensives.

Quite.  To add in response to your question, Slayer, technically the Russians won Prok but only because the Germans stopped advancing in response to Soviet counter attacks north of Kharkov.  Otherwise, the advance would have continued with ease, the soviet tank reserves had been obliterated.  Also of note, Lightning, is that there were far fewer tanks at Prok than in Brody or some battles in the French 1940 campaign.

As for turning point, I'd say that was honestly the battle of britian.  Once that was lost, there was simply no way of threatening England, and the Soviet Union was going to be going to war with Germany one way or another, was just a matter of time.  The moment the Germans couldn't invade and knock England out (from Europe anyways, I highly doubt they would ever have left the war), they lost the war.
« Last Edit: 10-01-2013, 06:01:58 by VonMudra »

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #37 on: 10-01-2013, 06:01:59 »
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).

Hehe, that is why i asked.


Now reading Cameron's response to our claim and his "fear" of Argentine Forces invading the Islands (Might be the dumbest idea, ever) he started to militarize the area even more, now that he lacks the Carriers to "Protect" ""his land"" from a """""possible""""" invasion he sent some jets, soldiers and ships.

 Argentina invaded once, so what is to stop the Argie government from trying again? It obviousl won't happen because the country is dead broke and has zero support for the possible reclamation of a territory that never belonged to them in the first place.

 
@ Torenico,  you really need to read up on some un-biased material to get a grasp of what truly exists on the Falklands to deter any possible aggression from the Argentine's. In the event of any hostilities, the military garrison available is more than sufficient to deter enemy forces for long enough to bring in reinforcement's.

 The Brit's don't have any ships stationed in the Falklands, instead their defensive strategy relies upon superior air defence, well trained infantry and a detachment of eurofighter's that can easily shoot down anything the Argentine's can even get flying or sailing. In concert with these assets, the UK government has also built up logistic support on the island with the main focus upon the deterrent value of their strategic airlift resources, the Falklands militia and the possible deployment of nuclear submarines that could single-handedly eliminate any Argentine naval forces that were put into action.

 The best chance Argentina ever had to take those islands happened over 30 years ago and it will never happen again. The British are better prepared, better armed and have the upper hand in terms of morale and community support.


 your country is better off regaining the economic importance that it once held, Argentina is dying a slow death from inept governance and no amount of propaganda will save themselves from the hard choices they need to make. You might want to make war but your country cannot afford to stay alive, let alone spend billions on a lost cause.

uk briefing paper: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.098
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #38 on: 10-01-2013, 07:01:18 »
Actually it is a political idea to garner public support.

When you fail in economy, play nationalism. It is a popular ploy in South America. High inflation rate, poor output/productivity, failed economic policy, then blame the US and its decadent capitalism cronies. Everyone will just instantly accept it.

Online Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.533
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #39 on: 10-01-2013, 07:01:05 »
But if you want to reclaim las Malvinas you'll have to do it quickly, because the super modern HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready around 2016 (and sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales around 2018).

Hehe, that is why i asked.


Now reading Cameron's response to our claim and his "fear" of Argentine Forces invading the Islands (Might be the dumbest idea, ever) he started to militarize the area even more, now that he lacks the Carriers to "Protect" ""his land"" from a """""possible""""" invasion he sent some jets, soldiers and ships.

 Argentina invaded once, so what is to stop the Argie government from trying again? It obviousl won't happen because the country is dead broke and has zero support for the possible reclamation of a territory that never belonged to them in the first place.

 
@ Torenico,  you really need to read up on some un-biased material to get a grasp of what truly exists on the Falklands to deter any possible aggression from the Argentine's. In the event of any hostilities, the military garrison available is more than sufficient to deter enemy forces for long enough to bring in reinforcement's.

 The Brit's don't have any ships stationed in the Falklands, instead their defensive strategy relies upon superior air defence, well trained infantry and a detachment of eurofighter's that can easily shoot down anything the Argentine's can even get flying or sailing. In concert with these assets, the UK government has also built up logistic support on the island with the main focus upon the deterrent value of their strategic airlift resources, the Falklands militia and the possible deployment of nuclear submarines that could single-handedly eliminate any Argentine naval forces that were put into action.

 The best chance Argentina ever had to take those islands happened over 30 years ago and it will never happen again. The British are better prepared, better armed and have the upper hand in terms of morale and community support.


 your country is better off regaining the economic importance that it once held, Argentina is dying a slow death from inept governance and no amount of propaganda will save themselves from the hard choices they need to make. You might want to make war but your country cannot afford to stay alive, let alone spend billions on a lost cause.

uk briefing paper: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06201.pdf
First of all, i do not support a new invasion of the Malvinas, mainly because it consider them, ours. They have NO right to have Islands that are WAY too far from the mainland, from London.., that's absurd, that's pure colonialism, British people have NOT learned ANYTHING at all.

Now, my country is coming out of a massive economic collapse in 2001, you have to like trough a collapse to know what I'm talking about. Thanks to US interventions, our economy was fucked up. Privatizations, may ring a bell. Now, some media don't like what we are doing, perhaps you think that our government is inept and might be ready to start a new war with England. lol to that. Perhaps, you don't like our government because it hangs out with people like Chavez and is friendly to people like Castro, hm?, don't you like the "Socialist" politics we're having?. Since the end of the military dictatorships and return of democracy in 1983, we never had such a great Government, like it or not, i don't care.

And don't come the British have always cared about the Malvinas, before 1982, NOBODY up there knew about these two islands and could not even locate them in a map, you knew that?.

About the defense forces, i simply don't give a shit, because we do not aim to take the islands by military means, diplomacy and peace is our way. You may have the wrong image of us amigo.

British are better prepared? well in the 82 war, AT LEAST, they had Aircraft Carriers....

There has been talks between Argentina and Brasil about a possible cooperation in building Nuclear Submarine.


And once again, we have no interests in taking the Malvinas with our armed forces. So go tell Cameron he has nothing to be afraid of  8)


Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.098
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #40 on: 10-01-2013, 09:01:49 »
Then let's start by calling it Las Malvinas instead of Falklands. My government and the people officially recognizes the territory as Argentinian's. And I do too.

I normally don't put the word Chavez and Castro in one sentence. You can't just trust fat guy "self-proclaiming socialist," because their belly is usually full of shit, and then they contracted old-age sickness which are usually caused by over-feeding or wrong diet. Why would somebody with that complexion be coming from a poor country and preaching about equality. Castro is a man of his own words. His family might own a lot of business and shits like American media reported, but we can't confirm on that yet.

Yeah, that is what makes people like Fidel Castro, Ernesto Guevara, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad different from Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez. While they all fear so much about dissenting opinion and heavily censure their competitors, they are fundamentally different.

And please, don't use "socialist" while referring to shitty government management and lazy bums. When "socialism" comes up, my first association is with Scandinavian countries, not some anti-western Latin American countries.

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #41 on: 10-01-2013, 09:01:18 »
 
@Tore,
Seeing that Argentina is itself a product of "colonialism", your argument falls upon deaf ears.

 What is the difference between the Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo bay, Martinique, Gibraltar or the Falklands?

 Argentina's colonial claim to the islands is no more sound than the self-determination expressed by the current resident's to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Britain honours national referendums on such issues and will continue to do so, therefore if the Falkland Islander's voted to leave, her majesty's government would be more than willing.

 I feel i must clarify one of your accusations, ""I do not harbour any animousity to the Argentine people but I do have a moral position against any nation that espouses conflict in order to distract its' own population from the true problems it faces""

 (in fact, if you really cared, some of my best friends are all refugee's from the dirty war in Argentina and the stories they tell of their country are becoming harder to hear with each passing visit that they make back to their homeland)


 Argentina has been in constant economic decline since the 1980's, not since 2001, and the Arg. government confuses the people by posing Nationalist arguments which distract the people from basic concerns like employment, currency devaluation and international ostracism.

 Recent events such as the seizure of the Libertad or the annexation of Repsol assets point to a deeper issue than the dog and pony show that Fernandez and her control over the state media exercise in order to distract the populace.

 A once proud and prosperous nation is now being ground into the dirt by nobody else other than the so-called democratic leadership that was elected to lead the people out of the abject poverty they currently live in.
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.098
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #42 on: 10-01-2013, 09:01:08 »

Offline Born2Kill 007

  • Anytime, baby
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.808
  • Professional accountancy hater
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #43 on: 10-01-2013, 15:01:30 »
I have a question:
I once read that during the Falkland war, british subs just followed Argentinian ships without ever being noticed and that they sunk the Belgrano only because it made suspicious movements.
But doesn't war mean you sink/kill every enemy you see that isn't surrendering? I quess it will have something to do with keeping the international organizations on their side or were there other reasons?
Rhinos are just fat unicorns
#FreeDamaso

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.098
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Questions Thread
« Reply #44 on: 10-01-2013, 16:01:35 »
When you sign Geneva convention, you have to adhere to the policies. That simple. Otherwise you are a cheeky country and no one will weigh your words.