Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Damian

Private
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Damian last won the day on January 9

Damian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral
  1. Would the US declare way on the Germany first?

    Well, from my understanding Germany before December 1941 was already a pain, if not say threat. I believe the single percentage of German ancestry was the highest, but I doubt it was higher that combined English, Scottish, French, Polish, Jewish, Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, etc. Also, German =/= German. The unification of Germany occurred in 1871. Which means a few years later after American Civil War. Which means Germany was a mixed culture group, consisted out of many, rather than a nationality in general. It took over 30 years to fix it. For hundreds of years, there was a dozen of minor countries and few bigger ones. All of them were a part of the Holy Roman Empire, yet the differences between the south and the north were also huge. Religion, dialects, social and cultural aspects, interests, etc. See Austro-Prussian War of 1866. 1. American volunteers were already fighting under the flag of Canada. 2. Lend-Lease policy has been already enacted. 3. In 1941, German U-boats already attacked few US ships; (USS Greer (DD-145), USS Reuben James (DD-245), USS Kearny (DD-432). 4. I highly doubt the US would like to have a Nazi Europe on the second edge of the ocean as their neighbor as it wouldn't be good for business. 5. World War I proved many points as well. Since 1915 Germany was considered as an aggressor and a brute. Atrocities they committed in Belgium were shocking. The idea of starving Britain also wasn't a pleasure to imagine. Attacking American ships neither. U-boat warfare was unrestricted. I can see some similarities comparing to 1941, which is why I wrote "Americans weren't fans of the Third Reich and they were already supporting Great Britain in a limited way (supplies, volunteers, techs). " In my option neutrality wasn't an option for the long-term for the US, even without Pearl Harbor, as it would mean either Nazi Europe or Communist Europe. The neutrality of US in WW2 could cause its increased isolationism and in the result losing the title of the great power.
  2. Survivors of the Armia Krajowa were active in the post-war era and called a Cursed Soldiers. They were very anti-communists and tried to revive the traditions of the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939), which means a democratic and independent state with European values. The last known "cursed soldier" was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the WW II ended. He died with a gun in his hand. In total, Cursed Soldiers were ~50 000 strength, all of them were either killed or turned back into a civilian life. Soviet reprisals against "rebels" were various, starting from torturing and killing in an unknown grave and ending at restrictions in a normal life (studying, working, etc.) or even forcibly changing their surname on more humiliating and vulgar version that I won't even quote. Some generations decided not to change those as a memorial of their suffering and proud history of resistance, even though they are often marked as a laughing-stock. The rebuild of destroyed cities was a different matter. Loans weren't as important as the communist ideas of working for the sake of the country. That thing helped to rebuild Warsaw. The bricks were sending from everywhere, including from Auschwitz-Birkenau barracks, less important cities, ruined factories, and so on. Not sure about other eastern European capitals, but Warsaw isn't too expensive for the locals to live. Sure, the life is more expensive than in other Polish cities, but I assume it applies to every capital in the world. The salaries are also bigger than in other regions of the country. Looks at Moscow and the rest of Russia, the differences there are even more amazing. Blocks are a common landscape all over the country, not only the capital. I agree those are ugly. But there was a reason to build them. Borders of Poland changed a lot in 1945. Many people stayed not only without their houses but also lands, moving from the East back to their country. Sure, some territory was added, yet in a pitiful state, but that was not sufficient for the growing population. Over 80% of the Warsaw was flattened to the ground. Many didn't believe that the city was rebuilt and there were many tourists from f.ex. Czechoslovakia just to see it with their own eyes. About the Rynek - it was a difficult task to rebuild it because of ...communism itself. Before the war, the city was called "Paris of the east" with many gardens and things that were just pretty. And it was a synonym of the west. Communist cities couldn't be pretty. The architects assigned to the task of rebuilding the Rynek were constantly fighting with the authorities in order to make any change as similar to the pre-war as possible. It was far from 100% recreation but considering the circumstances they did a wonderful job. Now, if you climb up the Palace of Culture and Science (one of the highest building in the centre of the city) two things staggers you: None of the trees is older than 70 years old, and second: the whole city plan was made as a whole instead of slowing adding structures and creating the spirit of the evolving city. It gives the impression of something nasty, grey and artificial. Video of 1939 Warsaw: Rebuild 1946:
  3. Stalingrad was a loss, but was is a mistake too? The outcome can suggest it as a mistake, but it was a loss by a hair at the time. And if that chances would favor the Wehrmacht, would there be any next city to stop them? While the Soviet morale was already shattered. After losing Stalingrad, a battle that they put so much effort, a city with the name of their leader, I doubt it. So no, i don't think it was a mistake, rather just a loss. One side usually has to lose. As for me the mistake was to help Italians, in both Balkans and North Africa. The mistake was to involve in that area at all, The mistake was leaving Great Britain unconquered while opening the biggest front of the entire WW II. Every tiny mistake and delays, every unnecessary battle (f.ex. Creta) caused a snowball of delays and the effects of it is Stalingrad. My vote goes to starting the Operation Barbarossa while not securing the Western Front. That's where no odds and luck was present, it was a decision and that could be called a mistake.
  4. I have always wondered what was the public opinion in the US about the war in Europe. Obviously, Americans weren't fans of the Third Reich and they were already supporting Great Britain in a limited way (supplies, volunteers, techs). Me thinks that war between Germany and US was unavoidable, the declaration of war announced by Hitler in Reichstag after the Attack on Pearl Harbor just made the things easier. The thing that's hard to crack for me is "when". As it happened in 1941 and the first real operations conducted by the US in the European Theatre occurred only a year later in Africa...it's scary to think if US would join the war years later. Every tiny delay was significant. Because of Balkans campaign, Germans were late for the Barbarossa offensive, which resulted in losing the battle of Stalingrad. What if the US would be late? Sicily 1943? I doubt it. Normandy 1944? Doubt it. Operation Dragoon? Very not likely without Sicily and Normandy. The Allies, especially Churchill, were very well aware that the invasion on the European mainland have to be a success or there won't be a next one. That's why it occurred only in 1944. It required tons of preparations, plans, diversions, and still was risky. Result? More forces against the Soviet Union on the eastern front. Perhaps the USSR would win anyway, with a bit more struggling, but then would they stop in Berlin? Knowing their earlier aspirations with spreading communism (f.ex. Polish-Soviet War 1919-21) I'm willing to bet that their next stop would be in Brittany and on the Pyrenees border. If the Third Reich would win against the USSR, no D-Day in Europe would be possible and the war would be most likely lost. Both options are terrifying. That's why the question "would declare the war on Germany first, and if yes when?" is bugging me. 1941 was already two years "late". 1943 could be too late, to either win against the Nazi regime or to stop USSR. Let's reverse a question a bit now - if the US would participate in the war since the very beginning, it's somehow more likely and possible that the borders of European countries would look like before 1939 and the Iron Curtain would be a simply border between Poland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland vs USSR.
  5. War Thunder

    Sure, there are at least two variants of Stuka with those cannons in the game. The thing is that you will always encounter enemy fighters(and bombers). Stuka turn rate is over 40 second, while most fighters do it in 20-25. If you find a Spitfire (or rather it will find you) it may not only shot you down but also humiliate when it comes to performance (with ~15sec turn rate, nothing rolls like a good Spit). Stukas are great against ground targets though. There are mixed battles (fighters and tanks on the same map), but not so many, which means most of your targets are AI and most of your nemesis are humans. Sounds like no fun to me. Hawker Typhoon also available, with typical for a hawker power. If something will get across your aim it will be flooded by your rain of ammo. And yes, all games are not realistic. But if you prepare yourself that you will have to play a game that's arcade, for fun, then it's somehow eatable. The Heroes and Generals is even more arcade and simple, in ridiculous ways often (like anti-tank mines in the river, or bouncing 2,5tons half-track, or Pershing that stuck on some tiny train trails), yet it all depends on your attitude to decide if the game is playable or not. War Thunder as for me was quite stressless and i couldn't complain much about the mechanics, most things were explained reasonably and some realistic features cannot be presented in a game. If they would try to do that then nobody would play Soviet aircraft nor tanks
  6. What was the most important plane of WWII?

    Important...tricky question. I agree with arguments about Stuka (and i really enjoyed reading it), as it was an aircraft that allowed Blitzkrieg to happen, touche Edward. The Allied air superiority in Europe since 1942 was a fact. Which model was most important? If we cut off any single model out of the variety - there wouldn't be much difference in the outcome, as plenty others would fit into that role, with better or worse performance. The one thing that was impossible to replace by other models was the range. So my vote goes to Mustang as the range of it allowed bombers to have some escort, and to bomb more of enemy territory, more factories, more difficult the war effort became for the Axis powers. It applies to Pacific theater as well, as Mustang was able to reach the coast of Japan's mainland after taking Iwo Jima. The aircraft itself was not only successful in terms of performance but also designed in a ridiculously short amount of time. P51 Mustang not only could fly to Berlin and back but was also capable of some dogfight in the meantime. Often necessary. With its engine, Mustang was also able to escape the dogfight, if necessary. It was a versatile plane when it comes to roles. That aircraft proved the might of US industry and technology and as for me, it was a sleeping giant of World War II planes.
  7. War Thunder

    You mean the game? War Thunder, without a doubt. Available on Xbox as well as Steam and standalone. The simulation mode is hard in War Thunder as a plane, out of 3 take-offs usually I crash once. Didn't play that mode too much though, not many players. The game offers quite a lot and is quite friendly for new gamers. If you mean which fighter I would pick... I played fighters already. I enjoyed British, American and Italian (few back then in German tech tree) aircraft, yet my favorite were Yaks with those massive 37/40mm cannons. Bombers nightmare. The thing with every machine in the game is that it doesn't include malfunctions. The only thing is the cannon that sometimes get jammed, but that's universal for all aircraft out there. Some Soviet aircraft were called "Flying Coffin's" not without a reason. So in theory, Soviet aircraft were quite awesome. In the game, where theory merges with an unflawed reality, those Soviet planes are kinda unbalanced. Spitfire for its roll rate. Hurricane for its firepower (and somehow I'm more lucky with Hurricane than Spitfires)
  8. War Thunder

    Yeah, and somehow I have more fun playing War Thunder, especially Simulation mode as a tank. No hints, no distance, all in your hands. Arcade one was great too though! With World of Tanks, I resigned quite quickly, too many odd features.
  9. Heroes and Generals

    Hello! Anyone was/is playing Heroes and Generals? Well, if not...it's a free-to-play game, where you can play as a soldier of Soviet Union/Germany/United States. As a soldier or general. Which means the game have two "spheres". The FPS, when you can play as a tanker, pilot or an infantry with a wide range of weapons/machines on the same battlefield. The game have few modes, most interesting is the War Mode, where the resources vary on what generals send into the battle. So you can have a whole division of tankers while the enemy won't have even a motorcycles, but are defending the city. It can change at any moment though, as generals are still free to send in reinforcements (unless the battle is in a closed pocket). Usually, the battles are ~19vs19. If you think that tanks are invincible, check again, plenty of antitank weapons, including H3, Sticky Grenades, Soviet RPG-43 grenade and of course Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks/Bazookas. Or you can simply plant a mine on some crucial routes. If you think aircraft are OP - well, there is plenty of anti-air guns on the map, you can shot those down even with a tank, with tons of luck you can kill the pilot with anything. If you chose the Soviet Union as your faction you can always equip PTRD-41- excellent against every light vehicle, some tanks, and aircraft. The core of the battle is ALWAYS infantry. Generals gameplay is about strategy. Every faction starts the war with two major cities and the goal is to conquer 15 out of 23. It's a bit more advanced part of the game, so let's skip that for now. Gameplay: Website: https://heroesandgenerals.com/ Also available on Steam.
  10. As for me, it was both Battle of Britain and Operation Barbarossa as a whole. Starting so huge offensive on the second edge of Europe without securing the back was a risky idea. If Operation Barbarossa would end a success before 1944... the Battle of Britain wouldn't be so significant as a loss and no Normandy would be possible, while the Allies in Italy would have a hard nut to crack. Operation Barbarossa was not a battle itself so my vote goes to Stalingrad too as it was a start of unstoppable counter-offensive that stopped only in Berlin 1945. But again, if the UK would be somehow conquered - how many more German troops, supplies and machines could be moved toward Eastern Front? Scary to think, as the Stalingrad was won by a hair.
×