RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. - 5/5/2011 1:08:43 PM

pogo4pres

Posts: 593
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

Your snide ROFL displays the complete lack of knowledge of history you posses. I would suggest you read up carefully on the 900 day siege of Leningrad (St Petersberg), the Battle of Kursk, and the battle for Stalingrad (Volgograd). Check the German forces tied up in those, and the losses, then think strongly about how the war would have differed if those forces had been able to fight in the west vs the allies.

Once you've done that research kindly get back to us here in the forums.

Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

Once youve researched exactly where the Russians got their weaponsa and supplies kindly get back to us here in the forums....or dont. no one gives a fuck.

Yeah you don't give a fuck because you're a historical ignoramus. Was it was the US that built and supplied those thousands of T-34 tanks? The US designed and built the IL-2, and Yak-9s for the Russians? Look Mr History, the Russian forces early on were supplemented by the "Lend-Lease" program, but in no fucking way was it entirely responsible for supplying them. Like 1500 P-39s made THAT big a difference.

What a fucking dope.

Historically & Sarcastically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

_____________________________

"All life is pain highness, anyone that says different is just trying to sell something" The Man in Black (Dread Pirate Roberts)

(in reply to NewOCDaddy)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. - 5/5/2011 5:41:03 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Look Mr History, the Russian forces early on were supplemented by the "Lend-Lease" program, but in no fucking way was it entirely responsible for supplying them. Like 1500 P-39s made THAT big a difference.

Russian forces got fucking little from lend lease until late 43early 44. That came through iran.
It took the u.s. government two and a half years to build a railroad in a friendly country with infastructure about five hundred miles. There were I think parts of two or three convoys got into murmansk pretty shot up but churchill kept the number of ships minimal.
The p-39 was a pig at any altitude over 10,000' that the brits did not want so they gave them to the russians who used them as flying tanks against soft targets. When one considers that the germans were making fighters at the rate of about 4000 a month (if I remember correctly) 1500 p 39 aint shit.
The lend lease that the u.s. sent to russia amounted to about 10% of the total russian war material produced. This means that russia produced about 90% of her own war matearial. When one considers that lenningrad, while it was under siege for nearly three years produced an equal quantity of war material to what was shipped by the u.s. as lend lease.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/5/2011 5:45:11 PM >

(in reply to pogo4pres)

Profile

Post #: 62