Greatest modern army?

Originally posted by Dampier So when did Tsialkowsky develop the concept and what proof there? Any links would be appreciated. � First Soviet nuke is August 1949, the Japanese connection i ahev no proof for as it was just a documentary I watched. However the� basic fact was that the Soviet nucleur program worked more off the Atomic Spies than actual Soviet development, the 1949 device basicly being a copy of the US "Fat Man" used in 1945.

    

maybe it is not true, because you watched UK documentary, but maybe it is, however, I heard that USSR made sifrst fission bomb (hydrogen), is it true, do you know?


Here is the link:

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrocketTsiolkovsky.htm

Originally posted by Dampier No but Japan was about to have nukes in 1945, Russia never developed one till 1950. And the Japnese scientists had worked alongside some of the German scientists so they knew what was going on. � No idea for your second question. H.G. Wells comes to mind but i feel its bound to be some Russian in the 15th century....

Yeah, the answer to question is Tsialkowsky, he was the first to develop the concepts of rocekt and how it would travel in to heavens.

USSR had nukes in 1949, and I don't think Japan was about to have nukes in 1945, do you have any references Dampier?
    

Originally posted by Dampier Actually Japan is fairly self sufficent on itsd own and while obviously they might lose in the long run thats only if you ignore all other factors (the Allies, the other Axis etc). Not to mention that its entirely possible Japanese scientists would be able to develop their own nucleur bombs, I remember a program in which they said that Germany actually sent a U-boat with fissile materials, instructions and the like to Japan but it was made to surrender to Royal Navy ships off S. America (cant remember if they surrendured voluntary or if the British ships got to them). � Trouble is of course that while Russia would hold the mainland they woudl lose the initiative and commando raids can be devestating (check the role of the British Royal Marines Commandos, SBS, SAS, LRDG etc).

I think USSR would develope nuclear bombs first, I read that when Moscow was about to take Berlin, Stalin ordered to get to some laboratory first, before allies at all costs, because it is there that german scientists developed nukes.


Here is an interesting question, I wonder if you guys know that:

Who was the VERY first person to develop the concept of rocket and most importantly of a rocekt that would fly us to stars? He didn't build rocket, he developed concept and theory. You know who is that.

    

Originally posted by Dampier Never said the Japanese could conquer Russia, merely that they could raid and pillage coastland and generally being a pain. � USSR cant order that many AA guns....and trouble is while you only have to hold strategic areas thats still an awful lot os coast and an awful lot of strategic areas. Hell most armies cant even protect themselves with AA let alone the whole Eastern coast of Asia! Japanese planes could still mass up at certain areas to launch raids en masse that AA couldnt stop. � Japan cant beat Russia on land but Russia cant beat Japan on sea or islands. � Carriers move faster than artillery does and have far more range. � Japan doesnt need mainland resources, it did fine enough on its own and while they would produce less what does that matter, they are the only ones who can take the initiative because they can choose where to go, Russia just has to sit and wait for the attacks. � If there is long range artillery that can beat ships then 1) its rare enough so cant be everywhere 2) Japanese just use their battleships whose guns can shoot furthur or just raid and destroy the artillery by night. � Soldiers arent everythin� mate, Russia lost more than Germany in WW2 but still was a winner.

Well, now I kinda agree, because it seemed that other guys were arguing that Japan could invade USSR.

Well, about Russia sitting there and waiting for attack, it has been actually sitting there and doing this for a long time, lol.

I obviously agree that USSR could not launch a full scale attack on Japan, because it is an island, but I still think that this island will be cut off supplies sooner or later, it may take coastline, but sooner or later it will have to advance further in to mainland, by sooner or later I mean a lot of time, and then it will get beaten there and finally run out of supplies.

Although being on an island is called strategic advantage, I think that being on a large mainland with a lot of resources is more of an advantage.
    

 -O, Russian... Do you have any references to back up your statements? What you're doing now is saying "this is how it is and that's it". That is not the way to conduct a discussion. Japans superior air capabilities, strong navy and strategic location would be too much of a match for USSR at that time. Do you have the faintest idea of how hard it is to cut off an island(Well, Islands)? It's hard enough to cut of a landlocked area.

"can artillery be moved where carriers are YES."
 -Errr, no. It'd get a bit wet for the artillery crew I think... Artillery cannot be moved quickly enough to keep ships in check. Just moving the artillery from place to place would be an immense strain on the army.

 -The Zero was one of the best airplanes of WWII, beaten only by the P-51. The Russian Yak wasn't all that good.

 -I doubt that Japan would have been able to attack USSR with much luck. The USSR army would be too much of an obstacle, but the same is true the other way around. Japans position, air superiority and strong navy would stop the USSR cold.

Ahhh...

Originally posted by Russian Originally posted by Illuminati Japan was NO match for Soviet Union in WW2, ask anyone, you grunt, USSR would WIPE OUT Japan in NO time. No, they definitely would not. Russia took a few northern positions from Japan, but didn't step foot on Japan's home islands. Russia would not be able to win against Japan in no time. It would have been a LONG and hard battle. Not to mention Japan's navy would wipe the floor with the Soviet Navy just as they did in the Japanese-Russo war. The Japanese Navy would stop cold any major Russian advance. Russia can't fly it's troops to the Japanese home islands. Not to mention Japan's air force was much better than Russia's. Without the help of the US to destroy Japan's Navy how are you planning on Soviet troops getting from island to island?If it wer strictly Russia on japan, Russia couldn't have done squat to Japan's pacific empire. The US won because the US navy was able to beat the Japanese Navy and isolate and bypass many island strongholds and cut supply lines to the Japan. How would Russia would have done that with an outdated and numerically inferior navy and airforce? as far as greatest modern army.......WW2 German Army. They had without a doubt the most ingenius commanders of the 20th century. have you though about this: Where the hell would Japan get it's resources? it is pretty small, it would be surrounded BIG TIME, it would have NO resources, but once it's ships would come up to land, they would have the crap bombed out of them. Japan was not nearly as powerful as USSR, it had no resources to fight USSR, while USSR had resources to fight anybody, my friend, USA in total war was also not as powerful as USSR, the most powerful army of all time (if compared to armies of it's time) is definitely Red Army, not German Army. I know it would be hard to land on Japan, but if they would, I hope you agree that we wouldn't be seing Japan as it is now, and it was no impossible to land on Japanese soil. Japanese navy WOULDn't stop any russian major advance my friend, Germans didn't, how Japan could, it was not nearly as strong. Japan would be left without ANY resources against Russia whatsoever, and it would lose in long run. Who told you that Japanese air forces were better than that of USSR? any proof? I think USSR would have air superiority and then bye bye Japan. Russia would cut supply to Japan also, maybe even more easily, where supply comes from? I would guess from land, right? well then, who had most powerful land army in history at that time, I think it was this small country to the north, called USSR, which would also cut of all supplies. US played a big role by stopping Japan, but it was not nearly as big as the role of USSR of stoppping German army, it is not just my opinion, it is true, but it is just not politically correct to say that Russia or USSr did anything good, that's why you, my friend, have no clue of how powerful USSR was, hence your ignorance of the fact that it would defeat Japan.

Russia had a terible navy. It was ill-equipped and was small in numbers. Thats a fact.  Not to mention history on Japan's side. Remember, Russia got it's but kicked by Japan's navy in the japanese-russo war. Your baltic fleet was completely destroyed.

Russia would cut supply to Japan also, maybe even more easily, where supply comes from? I would guess from land, right? well then, who had most powerful land army in history at that time, I think it was this small country to the north, called USSR, which would also cut of all supplies.

lol....please look at a globe.

YOU CAN'T SURROUND JAPAN WITHOUT A NAVY. IT'S AN ISLAND

Japan's supply lines ran through the pacific and into South East Asia! That's why Japan had been invading msot of the South Pacific and South East Asia!! Do you know anything about WW2??

Russia had no way of cutting those lines. Russia had no South Pacific bases. Thus, no way to stage an attack on japanese supply lines.

and you said I was ignorant....

In order to threaten Japanese supply lines Russia would ahve to mvoe it's land army down thru china and into the rest of South east Asia. And that wasn't a possibility.
How are you going to get Russian troops from island to island in the pacific with no navy??

and what about teh fact that Japan's air force was superior in technology and numbers than the Russian air force. remember, the russian air force was terribly defeated by the German during their attack. Russia had a poor air force during WW2. Russia won because of brute force man power and because they were able to use their masses of T-34's effectively.

Who told you that Japanese air forces were better than that of USSR? any proof? I think USSR would have air superiority and then bye bye Japan.Zero's

Not at all. the russians had inferior planes. Japanese Zero's were better than most planes in the war. Plus, where is russia going to fly their planes from? You could only fly out of USSR, which would not have worked agaisnt a superior air force that knows you can only launch attacks out of one place.

Russia would be at the mercy of teh japanese air force. The japanese with navy had many carriers. How many did Russia have? None.

Furthermore, you show your lack of strategic knowledge in comparing the GROUND war against Germany to the Pacific NAVAL theatre where the USSR would have to be island hopping to be able to beat Japan.

Russia had no way of countering japanese carrier fleets which would ahve put Russia on the defensive.

face the facts: russia had no way of cutting the pacific supply lines of Japan. Russia had no navy to attack or transport troops to japanese islands. Russia's air force could't defeat Japan's air force. Russia has no real strategy to defeat japanese carrier fleets which could travel and strike from Russia from many different directions. Russia had no pacific base with which to even attempt to attack japanese supply lines. You're also assuming that Russia would eb on the offenseive. With japan's superior air force and naval capablites, Russia would be getting bombed alot more than japan would.

Edited by Illuminati - 19-May-2006 at 21:13

Originally posted by Death So Russian you say that USSR was stronger then the Germans?Yeah you beat Germany,why?,....because the whole world joined against them.No,no my friend.You can claim what you want but USSR could never have deafeted Germany had they been fighting amongs themselves,alone.

    

well, we can not know that, after dissolution of USSR documents have been released that showed that USSR was building forces much faster than Germany was destroying them.


The only help Russia had was from US, some tanks and vehicles, and that's it, by 1943, soviets recovered production rates and were able to decicively defeat german forces completely alone.

Also, Western front open in 1943, when Soviets were defeating germans allready, USA and UK were kinda watching at who is gonna win, and then try to become allies with who ever that would be, but USSR prevailed in 1943, seized initiative and from that time on, ONLY by itself could defeat Nazi Germany.

Actually I think that USSR could have defeated Nazis by itself, but it would take WAY more casualties and time, once it moved factories eastward, german forces were done, plus they wouldn't be advancing as fast as they did further in Russia, I agree that there were times when it seemed that Russia would fal, but I think it wouldn't, Moscow has been allready taken before, Russia didn't fall though, war of course would be on for much longer. you think germans were that good equipped? West helped Russia not that much, although it tries now to increase it's role in defeating Nazis.

99% of equipment of german forces under Stalingrad was soviet, by that time allready German army was out of equipment, their production capabilities were not nearly as powerful as USSR.

I hope you agree that the most powerful land army in history was end of WW2 Red Army, because if it would meet German forces, german forces would be done in no time, have you heard of Operation Unthinkable? UK and USA didn't dare to go on USSR with total war, Churchill proposed but was told that it is not militarily feasible by Chiefs of Staff, they told him that concerning the relative strengths, we are not in position to take offensive.

Something about Tiger (tank), germans, before they had tigers, didn't even match soviet T-34s, the only thing they were relying on their sudden attack (they actually backstabed USSR) and on superior command officers.
    

If you read german generals notes, they say that it is a forsaken war in 1941, Hitler himself, told his commanders: "Had I known russia's tank stengths, I wouldn't have started this war". By 1943 Hitler's officers knew that they would lose.


And it ia commong misconseption that iot was only Germany, it was Romanians, Italians and so on, so Russia was not fighting Germany one on one, Russia was fighting a lot of countries, Germans were mostly officers.
    

Edited by Russian - 19-May-2006 at 15:47

Originally posted by Death Hey dont get offended my Russian brother, we are not that diferent when you think about it.I love power and force too,but i dont like communism the Rssian way.That is just not right for the people to live so horrible.Russia should be the richest land and people the richest in the World,but someone isnt alocating the wealth in the right way.Only when a man fights for something(usualy $cash$) can he give his life in battle."We fight for freedom"-no,no,thats not it."We fight for(exsample) mother Russia"-yeah we do,but only when that same mother can keep me from being hungry.A man always fights for himself. If Russians had a real good ideology with� "cash and prizes" then it would be a good contender.(contender to itself because every man can be better and dont tell me that you are the best that you can be.Nobody is the best,everybody could be better if they tried a little harder)ps- i bet you liked that last post about us being orangutans,lol,hahah, but its true              �� :P

    

sorry for last post, this your post is reasonable actually, I see what you are saying, I agree.

Hey dont get offended my Russian brother, we are not that diferent when you think about it.
I love power and force too,but i dont like communism the Rssian way.That is just not right for the people to live so horrible.Russia should be the richest land and people the richest in the World,but someone isnt alocating the wealth in the right way.Only when a man fights for something(usualy $cash$) can he give his life in battle.
"We fight for freedom"-no,no,thats not it."We fight for(exsample) mother Russia"-yeah we do,but only when that same mother can keep me from being hungry.
A man always fights for himself. If Russians had a real good ideology with  "cash and prizes" then it would be a good contender.(contender to itself because every man can be better and dont tell me that you are the best that you can be.Nobody is the best,everybody could be better if they tried a little harder)


ps- i bet you liked that last post about us being orangutans,lol,hahah, but its true                 :P