Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Do you listen? Britain had the prerequisite like the U.S.; did they have military means? No. They used civilian companies to further their details. Germany didn't have that infastracture.
Do YOU listen? Jeez. The air force in Britain was all but gone while Hitler had reduced unemployment in germany by having civilians work on his war machine. The British had to start from near nothing near the beginning of the war and the progress they made was astounding.
Originally posted by The Pict
Do YOU listen? Jeez. The air force in Britain was all but gone while Hitler had reduced unemployment in germany by having civilians work on his war machine. The British had to start from near nothing near the beginning of the war and the progress they made was astounding.
You really don't. I said they took it from the CVILIAN side.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. Operation Barbarossa was doomed from the beginning; even taking Moscow wouldn't have broken the Russians or given the Germans the ability to withstand the Russian Winter.Actually, their tank was the best in the world.
If the Germans had taken Moscow, it is possible they could have used Russian resources and structures to survive the winter...But as I and others have mentioned, the poor German planning and fore-site is what defeated the Germans in the East not so much as the Russians themselves.
Their tanks had the heaviest armor, but as far as reliability, maneuverability and general technology, they lacked compared to the British, American and German tanks.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You really don't. I said they took it from the CVILIAN side.
Which Germany had been doing for years, did you pay attention in history, man?
Maybe you didn't get educated on what it was like in Britain just before the war which is understandable, but don't make stuff up if you don't know about it.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It's cute you don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by The Pict
Which Germany had been doing for years, did you pay attention in history, man?
Maybe you didn't get educated on what it was like in Britain just before the war which is understandable, but don't make stuff up if you don't about it.
Yes, I did. Hitler built it from scratch; civilian side didn't exist in Germany like it did England.
Originally posted by Robtard
The Russians for the most part were forced to fight, many a soldier fought not for love of country but for fear of Stalin. If they had taken Moscow, it is possible they could have used Russian resources and structures to survive the winter...But as I and others have mentioned, the poor German planning and fore-site is what defeated the Germans in the East not so much as the Russians themselves.Their tanks had the heaviest armor, but as far as reliability, maneuverability and general technology, they lacked compared to the U.K. America and German tanks.
True.
Reliability? Murdered the Germans. T-34s were three times as reliable and rugged as the Panther. Maneuverability? Never heard of a problem they, but I 'm not sure if they did or not. Technology? T-34s were simple, effective, and had a better calibre gun than all German tanks other than the Tigers and tied the Panthers.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
It's 1AM, I don't give two hoots what I'm talking about. The British Air force was superior to the German's... You can throw around as much cock and bull about German pilots gaining experience but that means jack shit. The British had better commanding generals and better training.
Training? No. It was about equal.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, I did. Hitler built it from scratch; civilian side didn't exist in Germany like it did England.
Yes, YEARS before the war. Britain began rearming as little as a year before I think. And The British was downsizing everything military wise.
And the civilian side did exist in Germany, Hitler couldn't have built so much without it. Like I said he cut employment by giving people jobs on working on his war machine.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Then I'm afraid that you are very ignorant.
No. Just stop.
Originally posted by The Pict
Yes, YEARS before the war. Britain began rearming as little as a year before I think. And The British was downsizing everything military wise.
And the civilian side did exist in Germany, Hitler couldn't have built so much without it. Like I said he cut employment by giving people jobs on working on his war machine.
Actually, you hve a point here, and I was too stupid to see it before. Ceding the point.
Originally posted by ThePittman
During the Operation Barbarossa, if Hitler wasn’t an idiot and had his armies attack the Ukraine instead of pushing on they more than likely would have taken Moscow but this delay cost him the precious supplies and then the harsh winter.
I'm actually skeptical if even that would work. The German Army would of been pushed back I believe since they didn't have the oil to advance very far.
Originally posted by RocasAtollAt that time the did have the supplies and the man power to have a very good chance of taking Moscow, the diversion cost them the supplies and manpower plus the winter. They were also in a good momentum and over running the red army at times.
I'm actually skeptical if even that would work. The German Army would of been pushed back I believe since they didn't have the oil to advance very far.
Originally posted by §P0oONYhmm But then you could say the first computer was the Abacus.
The 1st computer; although it's really irelevant as it has nothing to do with modern computers was actually found in Greece... It was Ancient Greek, it was used to work out some shit to do with stars... Can't remember now.
I also want to clarify one of my earlier posts. When I said that Russia couldn’t fight a two front war that was a “what if” situation, meaning if Japan decided to be smart and not attack the US but decided to help Germany attack Russia then it would have fallen. Russia had a hard enough time with Germany and Japan basically didn’t do squat to Russia and if it decided to go all out against Russia it would have fallen.
Originally posted by lord xyz
petpet----------------
I guess I should mention this, America should be grateful that Britain supplied the slaves. It provided a lot of wealth, made people like the founding fathers rich, made a new race in America, helped develop the US economy and quite a lot more.
Britain also made music genres such Heavy Metal, Punk, Brit pop, British Invasion, and more.
Prime Ministers such as MArgaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and John Major have helped US presidents into the making of the 21st century. (Although, that probably shouldn't be classed as a good thing) 😮
Inventions such as the computer, television, telephone. Bill Gates, is actually British.
I guess there's a lot of things, but now that I think about it, america has helped Britain also. I shall thank Robtard for supporting me on this. (And by that I mean, he told me to do it.)
Feel free to tell me I'm wrong now guys.
Everything you mentioned is not actually that good or worth thanking Britain for. Okay, I'll agree with the Brit pop. Brit pop is more important to me than anything else you mentioned. Computers too, only because there wouldn't be any Brit pop if it weren't for microchips in synthesizers.