|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
July 4th, 2016, 08:02 AM | #1761 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Halfwitistan
Posts: 5,715
Thanks: 113,479
Thanked 59,962 Times in 5,707 Posts
|
The figures suggest something else.
From the launch of the Marne Offensive in July to the Armistice being called in November the; British and Empire troops took 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns French Troops took 139,000 1880 US troops took 43,000 1421 Belgian troops took 14,500 474 Hardly the results gained by armies that were incapable of mounting an offensive or indeed capable of probably holding out. The impact of the Americans was to let the Germans know that the allies were getting stronger and the Germans could only get weaker. Having said that the German Army carried out a vigorous and deadly rearguard campaign. As to the American casualties a good deal of blame must be laid on the American commanders, especially Black Jack himself, who ignored the advice of British and French Officers and then proceeded to make the same mistakes that we had made in 1915 - 1917. One Division was actually in trouble for training with the Aussies in combined arms operations. A lot of young Americans died because of their Generals arrogance. Pershing was right on one matter, he believed that the allies should have chased the Germans back into Germany and completley defeated their armys. To do otherwise would be storing up trouble for the future. |
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to haroldeye For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 12:21 PM | #1762 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,813
Thanks: 26,898
Thanked 80,767 Times in 6,812 Posts
|
One of the main reasons for American reliance on 1916 style attacks was that the rapid expansion of the army on entering the war led to a shortage of officers relative to the number of troops. This in turn led to oversized US divisions with the standard number of officers, responsible for commanding more men. The big divisions were not suitable for anything other than battering frontal attacks.
|
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Ennath For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 04:24 PM | #1763 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,579
Thanks: 452,836
Thanked 222,657 Times in 16,567 Posts
|
Quote:
Yes, I know there are revisionist books that tell you different, so let me put it another way You'd spent 4 years fighting the Germans without success, and that was when you had millions of Russians on your side. Suddenly the Russians are beaten, and those millions are no longer fighting with you. At the same time, the Germans can release half its eastern force, or about a million men, to deal with you in the west Without the Americans, I'd put your chances at close to zero. But with the Americans you have a trump the Germans cannot match. The whole German army knew that too. And that's why the Germans stopped fighting. You shouldn't need to think long about this Although I admit, if you're British or French, the revisionist books must make better reading |
|
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to palo5 For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 04:57 PM | #1764 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,106
Thanks: 12,732
Thanked 21,648 Times in 1,096 Posts
|
Palo
I am no revisionnist but I think Haroldeye has a good point. His arguments are convincing. In fact you two are right. Without the Americans we still could win. Do not forget the Germans did not have lots of food when we had more. And we were enraged ; we wanted to fight to the last. We prooved it, the English and the French alike. The Germans were more discouraged than us. The Americans were still learning the trade at the end of 1918. |
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Ernesto75 For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 05:10 PM | #1765 |
El Super Moderador
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Adoptive Monkey Hanger
Posts: 58,127
Thanks: 772,558
Thanked 855,633 Times in 57,558 Posts
|
If You're Russian,There's no amount of revisionism that can make Russia's part in that war better reading..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If in doubt, Just ask Yourself What Would Max Do ? It is a porn site,But its a Classy porn site. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Mal Hombre For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 05:25 PM | #1766 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,579
Thanks: 452,836
Thanked 222,657 Times in 16,567 Posts
|
Quote:
The truth is that the war was badly led, and we lost it. But in the end we removed the Tsar who should have stopped us getting into it in the first place. This was known at the time, and is still known today |
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to palo5 For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 05:32 PM | #1767 |
El Super Moderador
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Adoptive Monkey Hanger
Posts: 58,127
Thanks: 772,558
Thanked 855,633 Times in 57,558 Posts
|
If He'd only listened to another charismatic Siberian..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If in doubt, Just ask Yourself What Would Max Do ? It is a porn site,But its a Classy porn site. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Mal Hombre For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 07:24 PM | #1768 |
R.I.P.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 4,300
Thanks: 26,852
Thanked 54,117 Times in 4,288 Posts
|
This debate is pointless! As far as palo is concerned, Britain in its usual pathetic way, pretended to fight against the Germans, the big bad Russians of course took all the fighting. Then when the Russians sued for peace, stabbing her allies in the back, the pathetic British and French Armies took the brunt of massive attacks, using the million odd troops released from the East, and using new methods of warfare, which in the early part of the offensive led to advances winning ground.
However the pathetic western allies, turned that around and actually won back the ground and advanced further. OK it cost a mere 860,000 casualties, against 690000 German casualties. Nobody disputes the role played by the US, but you fail to take into account that Britain had lost a whole generation already, Yes poor leadership, yes poor command decisions, but we fought through the whole war. But your dismissal of our efforts in both wars, goes a bit beyond the pail. |
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to rupertramjet For This Useful Post: |
July 4th, 2016, 11:40 PM | #1769 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 45
Thanks: 842
Thanked 1,406 Times in 66 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to britfan999 For This Useful Post: |
July 5th, 2016, 12:28 PM | #1770 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 840
Thanks: 7,251
Thanked 8,633 Times in 819 Posts
|
The Americans expected the war to carry in to the 1920's.
I read somewhere that they expected to have four million troops in Europe by 1923? |
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Old Jud For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|