RussianSensation-
Sure when you talk about a specific model not widely used by anyone. A 1 type example certainly shows off capability. This doesnt mean Russian engineers are incapable of producing SR-71 or besting it for that matter.
The SR-71 wasn't a one off, their were six in service for
decades before being retired. You want to talk about one offs then we can look at the X-15A which surpassed mach 6- that was built in
1959. I don't think you comprehend how far behind Russian aircraft is.
Currently Russian air force su-27s are being upgraded to su-35 standard. Even the mere Su-35 will lay waste to an F-18 - Movie What's scarier Russia has a su-37 which is even better.
Wow, a F-18....
what about the Raptor? It cruises(no afterburners) at supersonic speeds is stealth and an exceptional dog fighter.
Again, this is just showing the capability of what the country can produce. I think you don't quite understand that Russia has the capability of making the best gun best tank, best nuclear sub, best airplane....you just have to give them money.
I think you are seriously delusional or simply don't comprehend exactly what the US is doing. Our private citizens are putting people into outer space, we were flying some three times faster then the fastest jet your nation ever built forty six years ago. The M1A1 is now long outdated by US standards- it hasn't been updated as it is so sickeningly superior to the best non US tank it would be a complete waste of money. That is why most of our military equiptment may appear to be approachable by third world nations. The minute someone comes remotely close(take the SU-37) we respond very quickly(see the F-22).
I can also say that Russia is far more advanced than US since it holds 16,000 nuclear warheads as of 2005 compared to US 10,315.
You have no idea how many nuclear weapons each nation has in their possesion- and neither do I. You can know what they want you to think, that is about it.
Since over the last 20 years US agenda was to participate in every world brawl they could think of (come and fight countries for their own internal reasons), it probably means they have had more incentive to continue to invest into their military.
We spend more on our military then nations 2-20 do combined last I checked. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be approaching your nations GDP..
Steelski-
I can not belive how much of a misguided statement that is. Yes................the Russian front contributed greatly to the demise of the German defeat. There is no way to deny what happend in history.
You are talking about the way things happened. I am talking about the end result and how much of an impact it would have had. Another few months and Berlin would have been nuked one way or the other- Hitler would have been there along with most of the SS/SA heirachy and with the way the military functioned in the Third Reich German collapse would have been very close behind.
"No dumb bastard every won a war by dieing for his country, you win a war by making the other dumb b@stard die for his."
I dont think you really have much of a clue about how impressive their arms were at this point in time.
What precise statistic would you like? In which element? Do you want to know the torque curve of the various Tiger and Panther tanks? Do you want to know the typical ammunition useage for a particular German division during the war?
infact i am willing to bet that most of the casualties inflicted against the nazis was by russia.
By Mother Russia yes. Not by Russian soldiers or tanks. Exposure was by
FAR the greatest fear on the Russian front for German troops- certainly not the Russians.
Hitler made the decision to attack russia because he belived Stalin would attack first. if he had not done this and taken a breather for a while and developed more then we here in the UK could very well be speaking German by now.
You seriously underestimate how superior the Royal Navy was to the Reich's. They could not invade England and they knew that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If Britain had not been so fortunate and resiliant then America would really not have had a foothold on Europe and anywhere to really launch an offencive from.
We could have also gone in through Africa, oh wait, we did to that.
Yes it was bad but i am thankful that they fought so much to beat the Nazis because at least Stalin was race tollerant and refered to people as a statistic (joke somewhere there).
Stalin killed a lot more people then Hitler.
Although Hitler did not invade England he could have in 1941/42 if he had resourses concentrated there instad of attacking russia.
Germany had no way to project that kind of manpower, particularly not in the face of the Royal Navy. Forget entirely about the US- he did not stand a chance against England by itself in terms of invasion. It would have taken years for them to build a naval force capable of landing troops in any number on British soil.
BFG-
Of course it made a difference - Russia was responsible for destroying Germany's best Panzer divisions and some of their best units as well.
Wow, a couple of divisions... in the scale of the whole the Russian front in end effect would have ended up useless.
France was effectively a member of the Allies and you can't just go around nuking civilian targets of your allies on the hopes of hitting something military of your enemies.
Flower children were not around in the 1940s. We would have nuked them with a smile in 1945- you can bank on that.
At the end of the war the Red Army was the most powerful fighting force in the world and they probably had more tanks, artillery and men than all of rest of the allied forces combined.
To say that is extremely comical is an understatement. By your standard China has ten fold the military power of the US right now when in reality they couldn't manage to invade Taiwan. They had disgustingly underequipped soldiers fighting for fear of being killed by their superiors- nothing else. You significantly overestimate the lethargic production capabilities of the Soviet Union in the 1940s- not to mention their non existant air force and laughable naval capabilities. They had no power to project anywhere, could barely maintain a defense of their nation using a combination of scorched Earth to disrupt supply lines and brutal weather against a fighting force that never even put much effort into the movement- and that was with the US dividing Germany's war efforts. In reality, if Germany hadn't been grossly inept of their execution they would have crushed the Soviet Union in comparable fashion to Poland. A springtime offensive launch spearheaded by aircraft and then hit with Panzer divisions backed up by infantry with a secure supply line put in place and it would have been a fairly short war, the USSR would have collapsed with ease. Have I ever mentioned to you my better half's secondary and post graduate degrees are in WW2 studies? I have bookshelves filled with literature and am likely far better versed in that topic then I am in anything 3D related.
That's not to say without Russia the war couldn't have been won by the rest of the allies but it's pretty foolish to claim the Russians didn't make a difference.
In end effect they had little impact. With as poorly as Germany executed the war Russia still begged us to remove their supposed command headquarters for the eastern front from operation- witness Dresden. If Russia was remotely dangerous they could have taken out the city themselves, they posed no threat.
One element that a lot of people like to forget is that the US was advancing rapidly through mainland Europe
PRIOR to D-Day. We did not
need to go through France, we did it to ease supply issues and liberate a more friendly area for us.
Facebook
Twitter