Russia/Ukraine Megathread V6

[SandisLL]

LOL, real rant here.

If we look what happened in 1940 th....

It is easy to see that if Hitler had all these >2200 airplanes he already had lost vs U.K before he attacked USSR ....he easily had steamrolled USSR quickly and then....had been able to help Japan....sadly.
At least he for sure had completely destroyed Moscow and St Pete in ruins.

Cos then he not only had been able to use these >2200 airplanes but also didn't had to keep huge fleet with fighter airplanes in western front....
With this he might had used + 2700-3000 airplanes in 1941 th against USSR.
Then this had been end for USSR till 1942 th.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61404062

Another sunken boat off Snake Island as Liz Truss says Putin is 'humiliating himself on the world stage'

 

[idrankyourbeer]

apparently the tractor squad strikes again, but the video still hasnt finished processing yet, or there is an error with it



ive never been too familiar with military equipment so i'm not sure what a Russian TOS-1 is, but it can go fuck itself.

 

[San Marino]

This was your statement... you're incorrect.

This was my statement.

Indeed, but I'm referring to fronts with 2 different enemies. Two theaters: Europe (Germany) and the Pacific (Japan).

England fought on multiple fronts... for years prior to usa's involvement in ww2.

How far back in history are you going? Let us stay within the WWII period. 80% of British forces were fighting Germany in Europe. The threat came from Germany. Why is that so hard to understand? Americans had to commit 50% of their forces to Europe and the other 50% to the Pacific. The British did not have that luxury. - I'm correct!

* Britain did have secondary forces in North Africa for a period fighting Germans. Again, this was not a Main Effort from the British in fighting the Germans. A garrison of British troops was based in Egypt. Its main role was to defend the Suez Canal and protect Britain's oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Same reason the Americans were there. The Italian Army was 'shit' in North Africa, that is why Germany had to send forces to help. Here is where the brilliant Erwin Rommel enters the scene on the side of Germany, but we shall save that for another thread.
Patton vs Montgomery:

 

[curryjunkie]

Whats the point of this post?

he is just masturbating about how the USA won ww2 by itself...give it a while, he will bring his biden hatred up somehow...




LOL! , and the very next post...

 

[Deleted member 585708]

This was my statement.


How far back in history are you going? Let us stay within the WWII period. 80% of British forces were fighting Germany in Europe. The threat came from Germany. Why is that so hard to understand? Americans had to commit 50% of their forces to Europe and the other 50% to the Pacific. The British did not have that luxury. - I'm correct!

* Britain did have secondary forces in North Africa for a period fighting Germans. Again, this was not a Main Effort from the British in fighting the Germans. A garrison of British troops was based in Egypt. Its main role was to defend the Suez Canal and protect Britain's oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Same reason the Americans were there. The Italian Army was 'shit' in North Africa, that is why Germany had to send forces to help. Here is where the brilliant Erwin Rommel enters the scene on the side of Germany, but we shall save that for another thread.
Patton vs Montgomery:

Africa was contested for 4 of the 6 years and saw the surrender of hundreds of thousands of Axis forces.

 

[San Marino]

he is just masturbating about how the USA won ww2 by itself...give it a while, he will bring his biden hatred up somehow...

Your 'shit' posting on this thread is about as ugly as your avatar mate! Do you ever say anything good or intelligent?

 

[Boxiana]

Great job derailing this thread and making it unreadable guys

 

[PEB]

 

[PEB]

 

[San Marino]

These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense (cnn.com)
Of the 28 countries in NATO, only five meet the 2% defense spending target:

Sucking on the US tit - as usual:

 

[KnightTemplar]

Africa was contested for 4 of the 6 years and saw the surrender of hundreds of thousands of Axis forces.

"Before El Alamein we never had a victory. After El Alamein we never had a defeat".

While Churchill is exaggerating somewhat, the fact remains that El Alamein was one of the most important battles of the War. And won entirely by British forces. America was still sitting on their collective ass at this point. And probably would have continued to do so had the Japanese not sucker-punched them

 

[Anewt]

How far back in history are you going? Let us stay within the WWII period.

It's literally ww2 ..... read up some more maybe.

Edit. - enough derailment. Apologies guys

 

[KnightTemplar]

It's literally ww2 ..... read up some more maybe.

Edit. - enough derailment. Apologies guys

I'm as guilty as you are, mate

 

[TheGreatA]

These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense (cnn.com)
Of the 28 countries in NATO, only five meet the 2% defense spending target:

Sucking on the US tit - as usual:

That was a while ago. After Trump's strong-arming, most of those countries started paying up their share.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...up-defense-spending-after-pressure-from-trump

 

[KnightTemplar]

That was a while ago. After Trump's strong-arming, most of those countries started paying up their share.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...up-defense-spending-after-pressure-from-trump

Germany, for example, has stated it will increase defence spending by 100 Billion Euros over the next few years.

 

[A Lurker]

A paid Russian asset in Congress.

Cheered on by people pretending to be Americans on a karate forum.

 

[PEB]

These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense (cnn.com)
Of the 28 countries in NATO, only five meet the 2% defense spending target:

Sucking on the US tit - as usual:

The new Germany PM has decided thanks to Putin to step up arms development and purchasing already committing 100 billion euros to defense spending. France and UK are also increasing spending.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-commits-100-billion-to-defense-spending/a-60933724

 

[SandisLL]

About spendings for defense looks that it is a bit old report.
Maybe done during covid crisis...
Yeah, Poland is spending more than 2% and is increasing spendings even this year.Will continue to increase spendings in 2023 th etc etc.
Most likely futher increase during next 5-8 years is warranted.
Baltic countries already in december pushed budget projects with spendings increase above 2% limit.
Further increase too is planned and pushed up long term plans constantly increase spendings on defense even they already are planned above 2% for 2023 th budget with further increases in 2024 th, 2025 th and proposed in 2026 th too.
Like 2,3-2,35 %, then 2,5% and if possible maybe might reach 3% and more....All three countries.
Estonia too, despite is already spending more than 2% looks that is planning increase spendings more and more during next years.
Ofc refugee problem and when they get this after 2 years fucked by covid shit doesn't helps at all.
Luxembourg really looks that cos they are sitting between France, Germany and Belgium doesn't care much....

For Greece motivation is clear and does have multiple factors: Bulgaria ( yeah, they are in EU etc but high risk that pro Kremlin oriented ppl might get more than 50% places in parliament .. might happen...
Former yugoslavia is close to them.
Plus ofc Turkey is huge factor to invest in defense more...

 

[SandisLL]

Germany when it was West Germany and they had East Germany + USSR military in East Germany....then they gladly invested in defense. Looks that some years was even 5% or like this...West Germany.
East Germany in warshaw block....more than 8,5%...