| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alternative Cold War scenario(s)?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Alternative Cold War scenario(s)?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 17:59
Romania had a very independent stance during the late Ceausescu. It was the only Warsaw pact country that didn't participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, it also was very critical of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and, suspiciously, had quite cordial relations with the US.
 
Apparently, Ceausescu would seek to avoid the involvement in a confilict with NATO by any cost. Bulgaria is another story, it was complitely within the Soviet orbit, to the point that there were even "semi-official" rumors of Bulgaria joining the USSR as a "16th" republic.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 18:39
Read the article I post above about the order of battle.
 
Of all the WP states Romania (and Bulgaria for that matter) were the weakest (and Cezar could correct me). Their equipment were outdated (the only army I think to field T-34s in the 1980s), they lacked training and funding and I think Ceausescu was sceptical about his army's loyalties (which was proven right in 1989).
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:00
T-34s are still used by some armies even nowdays...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:05
Which armies?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:11
Angola, Cuba, China, North Korea...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:17
Yeah, and T-34-85 have been actively employed in Yugoslavia up until the Kosovo conflict...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:20

Only countries with no economic resources or used to live on USSR crumbs keep the T-34. I doubt China still retaines T-34s since they are already building 4th generation tanks and if indeed they keep them it would like their current role in Egypt, for training purposes and target practice.

 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 19:50
This is not the point. The point is that T-34s were still used during in Ceusescu's time and not only in Romania. Romania was not "the only country" that used them.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 23:10
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

All NATO documents mention that Romania's participation was doubtful, and that Romania would seek to remain neutral if possible. Bulgaria the same, but to a much lesser degree.
What's your "insider" oppinion? Would Romania provide her forces for an offensive towards Greece and Turkey? What was the Romanian view of the enemy NATO forces? What's your oppinion on the outcome of such conflict? Warsaw Pact and NATO Orders of Battle are available on the link that someone gave above (I took a look on Bulgarian and Romanian forces).
I think Bulgaria wouldn't have any chance to stay neutral, mainly for geographical reasons.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 08:16

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

I've read a few NATO documents about how they saw a war with WP and the various alternative scenarios. What interests me, as a Greek, is the southern front. According to most NATO estimates, the WP would field one Soviet (possibly two) army towards Eastern Thrace (European Turkey), supported with Bulgarian and perhaps Romanian troops, while the bulk of the Bulgarian army, perhaps reinforced with Romanian forces would provide a screen for the main Soviet force by attacking Greece in western Thrace.
All NATO documents mention that Romania's participation was doubtful, and that Romania would seek to remain neutral if possible. Bulgaria the same, but to a much lesser degree.
What's your "insider" oppinion? Would Romania provide her forces for an offensive towards Greece and Turkey? What was the Romanian view of the enemy NATO forces? What's your oppinion on the outcome of such conflict? Warsaw Pact and NATO Orders of Battle are available on the link that someone gave above (I took a look on Bulgarian and Romanian forces).

The Southern direction of attack, and the central (Chechoslovakia->Austria) would have never been chosen as main thrusts because the area is not well suited for mobile warfare. But limited offensive in these areas, would have served to tie up some NATO forces so reserves would be cut off from the northern main strike (Fulda Gap and North German Plain). Since the terrain is not adequate for large scale mechanized warfare, less equipped armies, like Romania and Bulgaria would have fared quite well in such an environment.

Regarding the will of Romania to get into such a mess things are a little more complicated.

The idea that Romania's participation in a WP offensive was doubtful comes, in my opinion, from a misenterpretation of historical facts. Mostly all tend to focus on the speeches of Ceausescu and on the so called "independence" of the guy from Moscow. The truth is that he was not independent and that all his moves were made to gain popular support. he never left or threatened to leave WP. He never ceased to aquire weapons from the USSR. So, in the eventuality of a WP offensive, if the outcome was estimated to be favourable, Ceausescu would have sent his troops.

Now, were would the Soviets used these so that the soldiers would have fought? Well, pretty much anywhere. Historically, Romania has always fought side by side with former enemies. In WWII we started with the Germans and ended with the Soviets. Certainly, the people's affinities are to the West but that would have not matter very much by 1968*, for example.

The proper Soviet political move would have been to kiss Ceausescu's a** and make him support them to get Albania back into WP ant get Yougoslavia into it, especially since Romania had the best relations with the latter.

Regarding NATO forces, the major threat for Romania was not the conventional side, it was the nukes. Geography does not make my country an adequate stage for a convetional attack of NATO ground forces.

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 10:45

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Of all the WP states Romania (and Bulgaria for that matter) were the weakest (and Cezar could correct me). Their equipment were outdated (the only army I think to field T-34s in the 1980s), they lacked training and funding and I think Ceausescu was sceptical about his army's loyalties (which was proven right in 1989).

Maybe the deception worked. Romania was not equipped with obsolete weapons. That OOB is quite interesting but I think some things were missed.

For example, between 1974 and 1985 about 400 TR-77-580 tanks were built in Romania. Add 400 more TR-85 in 1985-1989. These were upgraded versions of the T-55. Not state of the art but definitely not obsolete. The large numbers of T-34 that were "operational" were in fact used for training. Romania was the sole country in WP that developed and produced, in cooperation with Yougoslavia, a jet fighter (IAR - 93). Romania was also buiding helicopters (IAR 316 and IAR 330), missiles (AA and SS, I'm not very sure about the SAM's, probably some), APC's (Zimbru, a licensed BTR), IFV's (Jderul, a licensed BMP), ships, infantry weapons (AK47 and RPG derived) and artillery. These are not attributes of a weak military.

In term of troops and troop training there are also a few things that are usually missed. Conscription was compulsory, no surprise here. Ceausescu used a lot of conscripts to supplement the economy (construction, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.). Therefore, the illusion that the troops, instead of military training, were used as cheap labor force. The fact is that even those "sent to work" received a minimal training, and they were especially infantry and artillery troopers. How did this affected the overall troop quality of the armed forces? Well, not that much and let me explain why. First, the artillery. Artillery is quite a special branch so it's efectiveness is not the result of large number of high trained soldiers, bult mostly relies on a reltively small number of highly trained specialists. Back then we were using the term "rachetisti - rocketeers" to designate the troops that recieved a high(harda**) level of training.

There were also elite forces - paratroopers and alpine troops - that were having a very hard time during their term, especially the latter. As for regular infantry, these were provided by a trick regarding armed forces: trupele de securitate - security troops, that were not listed as effectives of the Defense Ministry they were under Internal Affairs Ministry. In size, there were around 60.000 active such troops. In training, they were better than average. These troops were pretty well suited for recon, diversion, intrusion or harassment missions.

Regarding loyalty to the regime, we need to put things in perspective. In the summer of 1989 few would have doubt there was a problem yet six months later ...

Oh, regarding the cooperation and execises with WP - Romania participated, I don't know were those who listed that OOB came with the opposite idea.

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 23:11
Good summary, Cezar.
 
Multumesc! Smile
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 23:24
Thanks Cezar for the excellent explaination. It seems that I have to rely less on Nato documents and more on the documents from the "other side". This is the 2nd time official Nato documents gave the wrong info to me.
 
By the way, how was the industry in Romania back then? I have always thought that of all the Soviet satillites Czechslovakia was the only one with a significant industrial strength but from what you say Romania too a strong industrial economy.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 23:32
In fact, Poland, Hungary and needless to say Eastern Germany had quite developed industrial sectors too...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 23:41
Yes but export wise Czechs were far more successful I think.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 23:52
Poland and Germany exported a lot too. Though, mostly to the Soviet block and third world countries.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2010 at 01:37
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The problem with some of the people living in the "west side" of the world is that they are sooo stuffed with cliches that sometimes I wonder if they do use their brain for other than reading and repeating some propagandistic lines. Your two mentioned technologies are neither stolen or borrowed. First, the jet engine that equipped the Mig 15, KlimovVK1, was indeed a copy of the RR Nene. But the Soviets only used it as a stop gap before their own designs were adequate to equip their aircraft. They've indeed "stole" that engine (which is different tha stealing a technology) but not because they had not any idea about jet engines. They had the plane, what would you expect them to do, wait a few years till their engines were ready or use whatever means to make it fly properly?
 
So how is what I've been saying any different than that. I said Soviet scientist and engineers were really good at adapting other people science and technology. If you want to get really technical the Germans did a lot of the R&D that went into Cold war technology, including liquid fuel rocketry(which you'll probably claim was all Soviet developed), tailless delta aircraft and the basic priciple behind assualt weapons like the AK(and yes I realize it's not exact).
 
Quote Regarding the development of the atomic bomb, you should read more and realise that USSR started it's own project during WWII. Off course they used espionage to speed up the project but that doesn't mean they had only "stolen" the technology.
 
That's what it's all about isn't it, I wasn't claiming the Soviets were so stupid they wouldn't be able to figure out advanced technology even if they had the basic principles, but that there was a massive amount of resources put into penetrating and using the R&D resources of the west that wasn't possible for the western nations to replicate due to the tight security structure of the Eastern block. It all came down to speed in a race to develope weapons systems as fast as possible during the Cold War. For instance during the 1980s as information technology took off, the NATO allies found they only had to protect advancing computer technology for about a year because of the fast rate of development, the speed of processing doubling every 18 months or so. 

Quote Perhaps you think that bureaucrats and politicians can substitute engineers and nuclear physiscists?

I think if you can spend a million or so on a spy network or a couple hundred million on the baseline R&D, you're probably going to go on the cheap side, and the NATO nations were much more open to penetration than the Soviets were. There were no sealed research cities in America for instance as there was in the USSR.
 
Quote They built their weapons according to their military doctrine. Your problem (not just yours) is that you fail to see that the Red Army was not only made of conscripts. There were special units and elite troops that were equal or better than their western counterparts. And these weren't just a few.
 
You keep telling me what my problem is, I don't have one, your problem is this is a discussion forum not an agreement forum and as history has a lot of room for interpretation, opposing views are not just likely sometimes, they're inevitable. And I realize the Soviets had many different and sometimes quite unique forces, for instance the fleets of high speed ground effect craft and amphibs they had in the Baltic and Black seas not to mention a large airborne force with light armor like the ASU-57, and BMDs.
 
Quote The lifespan of the soviet aircraft is short!!! Then the Lancer I saw a few days ago was not a Mig 21, probaly built in the late 70's. It must have been a Lightning with delta wings, secretly aquired by Ceausescu from the British in 1975.
 
Not according to my info, the lifespan of many soviet models was in the 5,000-10,000 hour range, while many NATO models were twice that or more.
 
Quote The F-15 has the best and perhaps never ever to be reached score against enemy aircraft. Yet when was the Eagle really pitted against proper oposition? And it became operational in 1976 almost seven years before the Flanker and the Fulcrum. The F117 did became operational in 1983 and it was an awesome offensive platform. But you are mentioning these for what reason? I've already stated that by the late 80's the USSR was collapsing so what's the point?
 
You can't argue with the numbers, in a full up fight in Europe there would have been massive casualties on both sides, but the Eagle and the Electric Jet were designed to kill Migs and they were good at it. 
 
Quote Oh, yeah, I forgot that strategy, tactics and even military doctrine is what the soldier thinks. Are you suggesting that any weapon system fielded should be cleread for use only if the grunt feels safe? Maybe attacking some strongholds should begin only after the foes are all dead or incapacitated? I'm sorry about your cousin not feeling safe but what do you want him to ride, a wheeled/tracked battleship? Any soldier, in any situation, in a conflict area is not perefctly safe. That comes with the job description.
 
I'm saying some stuff gets built due to the shear inertia of the system and doesn't necessarily reflect the realities on the battlefield, like the underarmored undergunned Shermans the Allies went into Normandy with...that's all I said. My cousin feels great, it the rest of us worrying about him, the kid is Gung-ho(a Marine term) even if he is in the Army.

Quote I think you don't actually think.

No, I don't think like you. It doesn't make me wrong, it just means I've got a much different take on some things due to a much different perspective. Once again we're back to this being a discussion forum. Some of you self appointed Red Guards have a hard time understanding that a difference of opinion isn't necessarily an attack on your deepest held beliefs.
 
Quote Well, I stated not only that it peaked, I stated that in a conventional conflict NATO (195? - 1970) would have probably lost. Also it was a statement based only on military and economic capabilities. I excluded political, moral, psychological and other similar factors to make it simpler. After all, Panther said:No perimeters in this scenario, just Let your imagination flow. If you wish, I could consider some of these elements but mostly from the Red side of the Curtain. I'm not sure about the West.
 
I'm not even going to go there, this conversation is screwed up enough as it is without bringing in theoreticals like this
 
Quote  Oh, you capitalist !%!@#%!%@$%!!!. I knew it! You and the likes of you have managed to stop the revolution! But be wary, the class-conscious proletariat has not been defeated! You might have won the battle, but eventually, the toiling masses will be liberated from every form off opression and exploitation. Youl will then see how wonderful the life will be, with only one party representing the people, living free under the glourios leadership of one man. It's simple and natural. No talk shows, no churches, no various ideologues, nothing but a happy unified society that even the ants will envy. Defetists and saboteurs like you will be reeducated. Unde the gentle supervision of our security troops, you will learn how working in the mines is better than speaking nonsense about individual rights. If you will work yourself to death, it will be a happy death since you will have served the people. When the global revolution will win (next week would be great - no use waiting for too long), you will realise how wrong you were and what true wonders a centralised state can provide to even people like you, who, being complacent with your social status, failed to achieve the culural and intelectual levels necessary to properly asses the true social values and the real needs of the people. Individuals like you only think that they are happy living. "Western democracies" are only sedating their people with delusions like human rights, freedom of press, etc. What a trully evolved human being needs is to serve the party, the glourios leadership, thus reaching the highest achievments in a person's life.
 
What???
 
You made the comment I didn't know what living in a centralized stalinist state was like and you're right. I did grow up close to people who got the crappy end of the sickle though so I have a better idea than some in my culture what the downsides of living in one were.
 
This is a discussion forum, not a re-education camp, try remembering that in the future.


Edited by DukeC - 08 Jul 2010 at 01:46
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2010 at 18:36

Why let the real world intrude...

 
The Soviet Army like the state it served was as much bluster and bluff as it was real strength.
 
The massive force was made up mostly of recruits from republics that had questionable(at best) loyalty to the USSR as can be seen in how quickly it came apart. Many soldiers held deep resentment in being forced to serve a state that was oppressing their culture and/or religion as in the Muslim dominated south. Many recruits also didn't speak Russian and hazing was and still is a serious issue, the same for alcoholism. Re-enlistment was low(who can blame them) relative to western militaries meaning officers ended up performing many of the roles NCOs would have been responsible for in NATO countries. All this affected unit cohesion and effectiveness.
 
The equipment they were forced to use while effective on paper often had serious flaws. The autoloader on the 73mm armed BMP tended to eat the limbs of unwary gunners and there was a large blind spot in weapons coverage in the front left quadrant due to placement of the infrared spotlight. Gunners on the BMP didn't get adequate training to master the 73mm gun which was slow firing and suffered from wind deflection at longer ranges. The T64/72 tanks had some of the same autoloader issues and the turrets were so cramped you almost had to be a midget to fit inside. Troops riding for hours in BMPs were often knocked senseless making their combat efficiency questionable.
 
Given the Soviet propensity to use tactical nuclear weapons:
 
From Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army by David Isby
 
Quote Soviet warfare is basically nuclear warfare. The great task of post-war Soviet doctrine has been  to come to grips with military operations in an environment dominated if not by actual nuclear  weapons, then with the threat of their use at any time. Unlike the US Army, the Soviet Army does not see nuclear-environment tactics as something external and additional to their normal means of operation.
 
Given the presense of under-trained, resentful, physically abused, often drunk teenagers in massive numbers in thousands of AFVs with little control in the chaos of combat I think there wouldn't have been any real possiblility of a limited conflict. The Soviet drive would have hit a roadblock, nuclear release would have been given to frontal commanders and Europe then the whole world would have been annihilated.
 
Quote Once the Soviets have decided to use nuclear weapons, they will use them in a manner intended to assure full surprise and shock effect. The Soviets view the controlled limited use of theatre nuclear weapons once the theatre nuclear threshold has been crossed as a nonsense. A scenerio in which the Soviets might destroy one city with one missile to cross the nuclear threshold is ridiculous.
 
There was nothing limited or conventional about the Soviet Unions system of government and its' armed forces reflected this. Nuclear weapons were organic down to the divisional level and could be deployed by FROGs, Scuds, Scaleboard missiles, 180 mm guns, 152 mm SP howitzers or frontal aviation. Deeper targets could be hit by SS-4, SS-5, and later SS-20 IRBMs. In the real world there was no effective separation between NBC and conventional warfare in the Soviet system... something its' leaders were pragmatic enough to recognize or we probably wouldn't still be here.
 
 Which makes this just another, Ooh! look how thick that tanks armor is, wow look how big that gun is... these guys are totally gonna kick butt thread.
 


Edited by DukeC - 09 Jul 2010 at 18:39
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2010 at 22:33
Dear DukeC, you have an excellent ability of finding sources providing very questionable even anedotal "opinion" by authors who seem to be very limited of the subjects they were trying to write about.
 
You need to realize since it's a "discussion" as you like to point out, that those opinions provided in your "sources" may not necessarily refelect the reality but rather the stereotypical wrong impressions which rather look like propaganda than results of balanced and unbiased research.
 
Particularly, the statement below is honestly nonsense:
 
"The massive force was made up mostly of recruits from republics that had questionable(at best) loyalty to the USSR as can be seen in how quickly it came apart. Many soldiers held deep resentment in being forced to serve a state that was oppressing their culture and/or religion as in the Muslim dominated south. Many recruits also didn't speak Russian and hazing was and still is a serious issue, the same for alcoholism. Re-enlistment was low(who can blame them) relative to western militaries meaning officers ended up performing many of the roles NCOs would have been responsible for in NATO countries. All this affected unit cohesion and effectiveness."
 
First of all, the society in the former USSR was a highly brainwashed and indoctrinated. People really "believed" that the Soviet state was "just" and "right" and that the military was an honorable and extremely important branches of the "Soviet state."
 
Another thing is that military was one of the most respected and well payed occupation in the USSR together with academia, to the point that the competition to enlist was much higher than the real demand. The enlistemt and "re-enlistment" levels in the Soviet military was very high.
 
Also, there were no any "disgrunted" feelings of "oppressed Muslim minorities" or whatever you described. The Bolsheviks were highly successful in destroying all the religious insitutions in the USSR in the 1920th and 1930th. There was no feeling or affinity of being Muslim, Orthodox, etc. especially among the yourth.
 
Soviet "Muslim" conscripts had no problems at all in serving in large numbers in the Soviet occupied Afghanistan and killing their "faith brothers" in thousands. There were no any reported instances Soviet "Muslim" soldiers discontent or resentment against the military. Even many of those who later Chechen rebel leaders had no problems of serving in Afghanistan, like the first "president" of Chechnia Dudaev who had numerous decorations for bombing Afghan mountain villages.
 
The reasons for that as I said, was because the religion was simply out of the daily life in the USSR until the late 1980th.
 
And as I said, secondly, being in the military was considered a very good career path in the USSR and there was a very high competion to get there.
 
The military itself of course had problems, especially, hazing which is called "dedovshina" in Russian, but it, as a general matter never compromised the discipline and abilities of the Soviet military.
 
Good or bad, but the overwhelming majority of the conscripts was prepared to fight and die in the great struggle with "evil enemies of the Soviet state and international proletariate" which was a succesful result of the work of the Soviet brainwashing propaganda machine.
 
It seems to be that the book you cited was written by a nostalgic Cold war guy who was writing anti-Soviet propaganda pamphlets in 1980th aimed at improving Western public self confidence.
 
There were enough of such "analysts" in the USSR too who were producing sheety "researches" about how bad American army is and that is full of alcoholic and oppressive officers and abused black soldiers or other poor American "proletariate" soldiers who were just waiting for the first chance to rebel against this evil machine whenever it comes...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2010 at 00:19
"Unlike the US Army, the Soviet Army does not see nuclear-environment tactics as something external and additional to their normal means of operation."
 
I am confused. Who at the end of the day was the only state that used nuclear power in a warfare? Who was seriously considering using nuclear weapons against USSR in early fifties? Which generals were going to perform nuclear bombing of chinese military bases have they crossed Korean border?
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 09:27

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The problem with some of the people living in the "west side" of the world is that they are sooo stuffed with cliches that sometimes I wonder if they do use their brain for other than reading and repeating some propagandistic lines. Your two mentioned technologies are neither stolen or borrowed. First, the jet engine that equipped the Mig 15, KlimovVK1, was indeed a copy of the RR Nene. But the Soviets only used it as a stop gap before their own designs were adequate to equip their aircraft. They've indeed "stole" that engine (which is different tha stealing a technology) but not because they had not any idea about jet engines. They had the plane, what would you expect them to do, wait a few years till their engines were ready or use whatever means to make it fly properly?
So how is what I've been saying any different than that. I said Soviet scientist and engineers were really good at adapting other people science and technology. If you want to get really technical the Germans did a lot of the R&D that went into Cold war technology, including liquid fuel rocketry(which you'll probably claim was all Soviet developed), tailless delta aircraft and the basic priciple behind assualt weapons like the AK(and yes I realize it's not exact).
Maybe it's my English but to me your statements are looking more like: "Soviets only stole and borrowed technology ". USA also used a lot of scientific ideas and scientist from abroad.
Quote
Quote Regarding the development of the atomic bomb, you should read more and realise that USSR started it's own project during WWII. Off course they used espionage to speed up the project but that doesn't mean they had only "stolen" the technology.
That's what it's all about isn't it, I wasn't claiming the Soviets were so stupid they wouldn't be able to figure out advanced technology even if they had the basic principles, but that there was a massive amount of resources put into penetrating and using the R&D resources of the west that wasn't possible for the western nations to replicate due to the tight security structure of the Eastern block. It all came down to speed in a race to develope weapons systems as fast as possible during the Cold War. For instance during the 1980s as information technology took off, the NATO allies found they only had to protect advancing computer technology for about a year because of the fast rate of development, the speed of processing doubling every 18 months or so.
Duke, how many times must I repeat that USSR lost the race and that by the late 80's WP would have hardly had a chance of winning a direct conventional confrontation with NATO
Quote
Quote Perhaps you think that bureaucrats and politicians can substitute engineers and nuclear physiscists?
I think if you can spend a million or so on a spy network or a couple hundred million on the baseline R&D, you're probably going to go on the cheap side, and the NATO nations were much more open to penetration than the Soviets were. There were no sealed research cities in America for instance as there was in the USSR.
Duke, what I was trying say was that no matter how many spies you have there has to be someone who know what to do with what they steal. And if you think the USSR rely only on stealing and adapting you are very wrong.
Quote
Quote They built their weapons according to their military doctrine. Your problem (not just yours) is that you fail to see that the Red Army was not only made of conscripts. There were special units and elite troops that were equal or better than their western counterparts. And these weren't just a few.
You keep telling me what my problem is, I don't have one, your problem is this is a discussion forum not an agreement forum and as history has a lot of room for interpretation, opposing views are not just likely sometimes, they're inevitable. And I realize the Soviets had many different and sometimes quite unique forces, for instance the fleets of high speed ground effect craft and amphibs they had in the Baltic and Black seas not to mention a large airborne force with light armor like the ASU-57, and BMDs.
Well, it is a discussion forum and there are people here, like me, who don't read minds. You constantly stated only that the Red Army troops were of poor quality.
Quote
Quote The lifespan of the soviet aircraft is short!!! Then the Lancer I saw a few days ago was not a Mig 21, probaly built in the late 70's. It must have been a Lightning with delta wings, secretly aquired by Ceausescu from the British in 1975.
Not according to my info, the lifespan of many soviet models was in the 5,000-10,000 hour range, while many NATO models were twice that or more.
By lifespan, are you meaning service life? If that's so, then your info is incomplete. On both sides you will find aircraft with similar records
Quote
Quote The F-15 has the best and perhaps never ever to be reached score against enemy aircraft. Yet when was the Eagle really pitted against proper oposition? And it became operational in 1976 almost seven years before the Flanker and the Fulcrum. The F117 did became operational in 1983 and it was an awesome offensive platform. But you are mentioning these for what reason? I've already stated that by the late 80's the USSR was collapsing so what's the point?
You can't argue with the numbers, in a full up fight in Europe there would have been massive casualties on both sides, but the Eagle and the Electric Jet were designed to kill Migs and they were good at it.
The Eagle was a combat superiority aircraft, indeed. The british Lightning was not, it was an interceptor designed to shoot down high altitude fast moving bombers, which btw, the soviets did not have as many as the NATO military thought. If you want a comparison you need to take aircraft of the same generation that would have fought. Like the F-86 vs Mig 15, or F4 vs Mig 21 or, if you insist the F16&F15 vs Mig29&Su27. If you misplace in time the aircraft, anything can be said. For example, the Germans in WWII would have had no chance if the Soviets would have had Mig15's instead of I16 to fight the Bf109
Quote
Quote Oh, yeah, I forgot that strategy, tactics and even military doctrine is what the soldier thinks. Are you suggesting that any weapon system fielded should be cleread for use only if the grunt feels safe? Maybe attacking some strongholds should begin only after the foes are all dead or incapacitated? I'm sorry about your cousin not feeling safe but what do you want him to ride, a wheeled/tracked battleship? Any soldier, in any situation, in a conflict area is not perefctly safe. That comes with the job description.
I'm saying some stuff gets built due to the shear inertia of the system and doesn't necessarily reflect the realities on the battlefield, like the underarmored undergunned Shermans the Allies went into Normandy with...that's all I said. My cousin feels great, it the rest of us worrying about him, the kid is Gung-ho(a Marine term) even if he is in the Army.
Bad example, the Sherman was definitely a good tank. The Allies just didn't had anything better. Oh, I know, they should have "stolen" the T-34 or maybe the Panther.
Quote
Quote I think you don't actually think.
No, I don't think like you. It doesn't make me wrong, it just means I've got a much different take on some things due to a much different perspective. Once again we're back to this being a discussion forum. Some of you self appointed Red Guards have a hard time understanding that a difference of opinion isn't necessarily an attack on your deepest held beliefs.
Duke, that reply came because you wrote that you think I'm being nostalgic. I considered "thinking" to exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment. Since I fail to see how you reasoned ending by calling me "nostalgic" then and now "self appointed Red Guard", I just reasoned that you are not reasoning at all.
Quote
Quote Well, I stated not only that it peaked, I stated that in a conventional conflict NATO (195? - 1970) would have probably lost. Also it was a statement based only on military and economic capabilities. I excluded political, moral, psychological and other similar factors to make it simpler. After all, Panther said:No perimeters in this scenario, just Let your imagination flow. If you wish, I could consider some of these elements but mostly from the Red side of the Curtain. I'm not sure about the West.
I'm not even going to go there, this conversation is screwed up enough as it is without bringing in theoreticals like this
Whatever...
Quote
Quote Oh, you capitalist !%!@#%!%@$%!!!. I knew it! You and the likes of you have managed to stop the revolution! But be wary, the class-conscious proletariat has not been defeated! You might have won the battle, but eventually, the toiling masses will be liberated from every form off opression and exploitation. Youl will then see how wonderful the life will be, with only one party representing the people, living free under the glourios leadership of one man. It's simple and natural. No talk shows, no churches, no various ideologues, nothing but a happy unified society that even the ants will envy. Defetists and saboteurs like you will be reeducated. Unde the gentle supervision of our security troops, you will learn how working in the mines is better than speaking nonsense about individual rights. If you will work yourself to death, it will be a happy death since you will have served the people. When the global revolution will win (next week would be great - no use waiting for too long), you will realise how wrong you were and what true wonders a centralised state can provide to even people like you, who, being complacent with your social status, failed to achieve the culural and intelectual levels necessary to properly asses the true social values and the real needs of the people. Individuals like you only think that they are happy living. "Western democracies" are only sedating their people with delusions like human rights, freedom of press, etc. What a trully evolved human being needs is to serve the party, the glourios leadership, thus reaching the highest achievments in a person's life.
What??? You made the comment I didn't know what living in a centralized stalinist state was like and you're right. I did grow up close to people who got the crappy end of the sickle though so I have a better idea than some in my culture what the downsides of living in one were. This is a discussion forum, not a re-education camp, try remembering that in the future.
It's not a reeducation camp yet, but it will be, you reactionary-anarhisto-bourgeo-uneducated $@&%$#*%#$! Just as I'm typing, Seko is preparing a Red Banner background. Administrators and the mods are at the First Congress Of the Revolutionary AE, where the new COC is to be adopted. Here's what comes for all of you inadeqautely indoctrinated members:

Code of Conduct & Terms of Use

In order to use this forum, you must agree to accept the following:

I. Implications of posting.

Anything you do give must be considered as is becoming public information. You and you relatives and friends remain solely responsible for the content of your messages and the content of the messages you read, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this forum and their agents with respect to any claim based upon any post you may make or you read. We also reserve the right to reveal whatever information we know about you in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted or read by yourself, your familiy or your friends. By posting, you are also aware of the FCC's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) which requires that Web Sites obtain parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. Since we do not seek parental consent, you can NOT use this forum if you are below the age of 13 and you will be held responsible if any inadequately educated child reads or posts messages in this forum or any other forum.

II. Roles and powers of the staff

The forum administrators and the moderating staff reserve full rights to whatever is necessary to regulate forum topics and members. This includes: The right to terminate any membership and the right to delete threads or specific comments for any reason or no reason without warning. In practice, the staff will take such actions when there is a violation of rules, defined below, exhibited by members or they think it is beneficial to the society. AE members are obliged to follow any instructions or decisions by AE staff with immediate effect. This includes suggestions by private message, in which, noncompliance may result in a warning anything.


III. Procedures of the staff regarding bans and warnings

In the event of a violation, the administration will determine privately the severity of the case and act accordingly. Severe Any violation can will result in an immediate trip to the nearest police station. ban, which may be permanent or temporary. Lesser violations will be given warnings, or bans from specific forum sections. Minor violations may result in simple deletion of comments. The decision of the staff, with regards to warnings and bans, will become effective immediately, as soon as it is posted in the "Edicts" forum and will also be communicated via Private Messaging (PM)to the member.

IV. Complaints against specific forum members
Reports of misconduct must will be directed to anyone forum Administrator, Council member or a moderator active in the forum section of the alleged misconduct in Private Messaging(PM) Anyone, will then act according to the revolutionary penal code. Please provide specific information, links, and/or quotations is not required to ensure a fast response. The staff will respond or not, after determining the extent of the misconduct. The staff is not obligated to take any action against a forum user purely for the sake of personal preference by another, unless "another" is a preffered user.

V. Complaints about staff actions

We no longer directly seek to elicit public opinion on matters regarding violations, as only moderators may post in the "edicts" forum. An appeal to staff actions must be made to a forum Administrators or Council through Private Messaging. All appeals are considered, but we are not obligated to make any changes to the actions, nor partake in prolong debate. In the case of reporting misconducts of a staff member, they must be addressed to an administrator (preferably) or another moderator.


VI. The Administration

The official forum administration consists of Forum Administrators, Council and members of the "Moderator Group.". You don't want to know what the unoficial administration consists of. By guideline, the entire administration acts coherent in policy. Forum moderators are free to exercise their allowed permission and in most cases can act as the voice of the administration when contacting members. The server is paid for by the Administration everyone, as are the following domains: www.allempires.net, allempires.net/forum and allempires.info.


VII. Violations

The following Everything are the can be an acts that are is considered violations to the code of conduct or the revolutionary laws. For many cases the administration will determine the severity. Violations include but are not limited to the following are some that are specified in order to confuse the users:

A .Legal Violations

Any violations to criminal laws will be prosecuted to the fullest extent if necessary. This includes: Posting or advocating warez, sabotaging or hacking the server and its related components, attacking a user in a way that is considered criminal, and violating international copyright laws. Any use of the forum that violates the privacy of other users is strictly forbidden. everything.

B. Inappropriate posting

1. Multiple User-Names: All AE members will have only one user-name unless a change is specifically requested by the member and approved of by the staff. Multiple user-names are not allowed. Permanent bans will be given and are pronounced against specific persons and accompanying user-names. Any attempt by a member to log in under a different user-name will result in the immediate deletion of both the current and new accounts. Thus, the member who has more than one account will be banned from the forum. Previously banned members may not create new accounts, otherwise those will be banned as well. Anyone breaking this rule is considered a social menace and will be interned for at least two years in a labor camp.

2. Spam: Spam is defined as irrelevant, wrongly placed, or redundant messages posted for attention in the Forum or sent via PM as unsolicited mail. Spam will be deleted from the forum, and constitutes a violation of use. Posting under multiple user-names by an individual member is also considered as spamming. Anyone breaking this rule is going to be used for testing new drugs.

3. Trolling; Trolling is the act of posting witty, response-provoking comments that appear relevant in order to disrupt the discussion, annoy or create attention. Trolling can also be considered as Spam, inflammatory remarks, or annoyance. Anyone breaking this rule is going to be used for testing bullet proof vests.

4. Obscene material, excessively graphic pictures, and pornography of any type. Anyone breking this rule is going to be shot. Exceptions will be made if the official administration or especially the unoficial administration will enjoy the posted materials.

5. Rude insults, defamatory remarks, offensive images, cursing, profanity intended as an insult towards another member, personal attacks, words of hate. Any remarks that stirs up anger. In dealing with flame wars, comments that started the flame war will have more weight in terms of violation. Excepted from this rule and rules 6,7,8, 11 and 13 are the nostalgics and self appointed Red Guards.

6. Nationalism and the belittlement of religious groups; derogatory remarks to religious, national or ethnic groups and members, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda. (see appendix below).

7. Derogatory remarks to individual members or social groups on grounds of their age, gender, or sexual orientation.

8. Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.

9. Excessive posting in other languages. English and Russian isare the official languages in all the forum sections.

10. Religious preaching. Do that and you're dead.

11. Plagiarism, the posting of texts found elsewhere without naming either author or source. Posting your own personal commentary is encouraged when copy/pasting from another source. When pasting attempt to place the content in quotes, highlight or underline for presentation purposes. Provide a correct URL link. When referencing from books or periodicals provide the title of the reference, the author and publication date. Posts where the paste is the arguement itself, while not adhering to these requirements, will be deleted.

12. Some Controversial topics have their own Forum, The Minefield. These topics are not to be debated elsewhere on All Empires

13. Posting Private Messages (PM) on the forum without consent from the original author of the message being displayed.

14. Commercial promotion: In addition, the sections for history may not be used for promotion of commercial products or services unless highly relevant to the topic and considered appropriate by the administration.


VIII. A ban death sentence will be has been given to any current and future member of this forum who, after joining here, become moderators or administrators at allempires.com. Anyone who has joined the staff at allempires.com after October 1 2009 can become members here if they relinquish their position at allempires.com or if they joined us after already becoming part of the .com staff first.


IX. These forum rules do not and are not intended to cover everything. Moderators and ultimately Administrators reserve the right to act accordingly to the revolutionary doctrine keep the peace and order of this History Community.


Appendix

Definition of unacceptable nationalistic remarks:

This category of violations has been perhaps the most troublesome to deal with. The definition is that remarks are unacceptable if they have the intention of disparaging, belittling, or insulting another religious, ethnic or national group. Unacceptable remarks can take the form of direct messages disparaging a religious or national group, indirect messages overly promoting one's religious affinity or national group, and/or a more implicit attack, written against a particular political, cultural, or historical aspect of that religious or national group. An acceptable remark is one that is objective and presents facts without a certain element of tone in the message. A criticism merely points out a problem, whereas an insult implies inherent inferiority. In order to make the forum less susceptible to these problems, topics regarding modern politics can only be posted in the "Intellectual discussions" section. Topics regarding religion should be posted in the "Philosophy and Theology" section where the discussion of religious history, policies and figures are allowed for debate. Moderators and Administrators reserve the right to delete threads or comments that are controversial.



Edited by Cezar - 12 Jul 2010 at 09:39
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 10:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Thanks Cezar for the excellent explaination. It seems that I have to rely less on Nato documents and more on the documents from the "other side". This is the 2nd time official Nato documents gave the wrong info to me.
 
By the way, how was the industry in Romania back then? I have always thought that of all the Soviet satillites Czechslovakia was the only one with a significant industrial strength but from what you say Romania too a strong industrial economy.
 
Al-Jassas
I wouldn't say all documents from NATO are wrong but they are incomplete. You should not expect them to be complete though, the same goes for the other side. Remember, deception was part of the game then and I'm pretty sure it goes on.
 
Romanian had a pretty large industry. The idea the communist leaders (Dej and Ceausescu) had was to make the country self sufficient and more. The choice to excesively develop the industry is not necesarily a bad idea. What you do with that industry is eventually the relevant part. To make it short, Romania was like Japan without the quality of the Japanese products. When they were built, many of the Romanian industrial capabilities were techologically at least adequate.
To take it back to the topic, what were the industrial capabilities of WP and NATO, and how would these have affected a conflict?
I believe economical figures only might lead to the idea that NATO would have had the upper hand. But a few things should be noticed:
Up until the late 90's the NATO arsenal was hardly integrated. Which means that many weapons systems were in use and this means trouble. On the other side, weapons systems were sharing single basic designs. That would give an edge to the WP in terms of logistics.
Also the decision to switch to wartime production would have been immediately implemented in WP countries. So the build-up for an attack would have taken less time. In the case of NATo, such a process would have took a longer time. Also it is hard to believe that NATO could have geared up for an attack without WP noticing. The industry in countries like Romania, Csechoslovakia, Poland and Germany would have also helped by spreading the production centers thus making the whole industrial park of WP less vulnerable to strategic attacks.
I guess that a short-medium (max 2 years) conflict would have been favourable to the WP. In the long term, the industrial capabilities of the US might have tipped the balance. The question is how much would the WP gained in the beginning.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 10:58
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Duke, that reply came because you wrote that you think I'm being nostalgic. I considered "thinking" to exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment. Since I fail to see how you reasoned ending by calling me "nostalgic" then and now "self appointed Red Guard", I just reasoned that you are not reasoning at all.

Last time we discussed soviet science with Duke, I was called Hong Wei Bing.  Duke, don't you need to reconsider your black and white view on the world? :)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 11:44

Hello to you all

A couple of days ago I was browsing a WWII forum (searching for StuGs) and found an interesting thread. One member was saying he served in the US army in Germany back in the 70s on the front lines near the border with EG and he said (with alot of detail, I will try to post a link) that with the poor equipment they had they had no chance against th reds. He said their arsenal of tanks (M60s) was inferior to the new T-72s.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 11:53
Cezar,
Whaaaah? Where did that comment on the CoC comes from? I don't know the context, so I am happy to hear your explanation, Cezar.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 17:07
C'mon, Cezar is just making fun by producing "Revolutionary CoC,"  perhaps with the aim of awakening DukeC's sense of humor. Quite ambtious enterprise indeed, with a low chance of success...  Big smile
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 18:36
There's very little sense of humor involved in discussing the the former Soviet Union and modern Russia here, I've had you and others attempt to ram my opinions back down my throat too many times to think of this as a pleasant discussion.
 
 
 
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 20:46

Regardless of the old threads, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that Cezar's references to re-education camps and comments to CoC were just jokes. Or you are seriously considering that there is a plot to put you into a re-education camp somewhere in Translivanian mountains?

Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2010 at 00:36
Okay joking aside, we need too remain respectful of each others opinions, whether we agree with them or not. Condescending or belittling remarks is very unbecoming for any us, no matter how subtle. 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2010 at 02:10
Something that stood out to me as i was reading this page was this quote by:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Bad example, the Sherman was definitely a good tank. The Allies just didn't had anything better. Oh, I know, they should have "stolen" the T-34 or maybe the Panther.


Ironically enough, the original Soviet T-model tanks and British Vickers 6 ton were based on a design by US engineer J. Walter Christie and his "Christie Tank".





Edited by Panther - 14 Jul 2010 at 02:10
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.