US Politics XIV: Vote for Pedro

[Magnus Maximus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation#Roots_of_deep_battle



please keep going though, it's really entertaining to watch someone failing this hard over and over again to actually know what they're talking about.

Caught You-- If you knew anything you would know Russia abandoned it, and didn't re adopt it after the war.

Really listening to you is listening to a Virgin teach a Sex ed class

 

[Magnus Maximus]

The rest really wasn't a true deep battle doctrine, because Russia was going on the offensive.


So you attack in Mass defend in depth, but if were not really on the defensive, to you stay in depth, No


Just say your WRONG, it's ok, I won't think less of you

 

[DaveC]

Caught You-- If you knew anything you would know Russia abandoned it, and didn't re adopt it after the war.

Really listening to you is listening to a Virgin teach a Sex ed class

from literally the exact same link:

Soviet military analysts and historians divide the war into three periods.*The Red Army was primarily on the strategic defensive during the first period of war (22 June 1941 – 19 November 1942). By late 1942 the Soviets had recovered sufficiently to put their concept into practice. The second period of war (19 November 1942 – 31 December 1943), which commenced with the Soviet strategic counteroffensive at Stalingrad, was a transitional period marked by alternating attempts by both sides to secure strategic advantage. After that, deep battle was used to devastating effect, allowing the Red Army to destroy hundreds of Axis divisions. After the Battle of Kursk, the Soviets had firmly secured the strategic initiative and advanced beyond the Dnepr River. The Red Army maintained the strategic initiative during the third and final period of war (1944–1945) and ultimately played a central role in the Allied victory in Europe.

good lord, this is so easy.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

So you see, Russia really didn't use the Classical deep battle doctrine during WW2. That's why they almost lost.


Read something, all you know are Hollywood Fairytales


They did implement it during the Cold War

 

[anitram]

Just say your WRONG,

Vintage STING.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

from literally the exact same link:



good lord, this is so easy.

This just shows your lack of understanding

quit just using the wiki and actually read something

Do you understand tactics at all deep battle cannot be used in the offense

So you and the wiki writers don't understand at all. Deep Battle doctrine as for the defense

 

[DaveC]

So you see, Russia really didn't use the Classical deep battle doctrine during WW2. That's why they almost lost.


Read something, all you know are Hollywood Fairytales


They did implement it during the Cold War

still waiting for you to provide any sort of sources or statistical backup for any of your points. and no, saying "period and end of story" a bunch of times and occasionally listing a random book title doesn't count.

 

[DaveC]

This just shows your lack of understanding

quit just using the wiki and actually read something

Do you understand tactics at all deep battle cannot be used in the offense

So you and the wiki writers don't understand at all. Deep Battle doctrine as for the defense

defense in depth and deep battle are two entirely different things. you'd think a military officer who's supposedly spent their whole life learning about this might know that extremely basic fact.

 

[DaveC]

So you and the wiki writers don't understand at all.

i took out the citation numbers for the sake of readability but since you insist on being made to look like an ignorant ass here's the citation for that exact bit:

Krause, Michael and Phillips, Cody.Historical Perspectives of Operational Art. Center of Military History, United States Army. 2006.*ISBN*978-0-16-072564-7

so your position is that the US army's center of military history doesn't understand the strategic history of the soviet army, but you do. this is certainly an interesting tactic.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Further deep operations has nothing to do with what truly defeated to Germans, Deep Operations is a combined Arms effort that really has nothing to do with the fact that the German army over extende there own lines. Further the WW2 Soviet Army didn't have sufficient Mechanized units to follow their own doctrine in essence what you think deep operations and what they really are wrong. You simply don't understand

 

[Magnus Maximus]

i took out the citation numbers for the sake of readability but since you insist on being made to look like an ignorant ass here's the citation for that exact bit:

Krause, Michael and Phillips, Cody.Historical Perspectives of Operational Art. Center of Military History, United States Army. 2006.*ISBN*978-0-16-072564-7

so your position is that the US army's center of military history doesn't understand the strategic history of the soviet army, but you do. this is certainly an interesting tactic.

Actually I worked at the center of Military History at FT Leslie McNair, you can find books on any subject that often contradict each other.

You don't understand what deep operations are, you don't understand what you watched on enemy at the Gates was not deep operations at all, you simply don't understand.

 

[DaveC]

You simply don't understand

so fucking prove it then. provide me with any kind of relevant, academically useful source that i can access on the internet that actually supports what you're saying, and i promise to read it with an open mind, and if it turns out that you're right then ill happily admit here publicly that im WRONG.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Deep Operations are a combined arms effort (do you know what that is)


It requires mobility and Counter mobility (do you know what that is)


It requires Mechanized units that are able to penetrate the enemy front, then have the speed to exploit the gaps.


Once you go on the offensive deep operations are only achievable with mobility.


What the Russians had was accidental defense in depth.


They used MASS on the offense with a defense in depth


The only really were able to use truly deep operations was during the cold war.


You are buying into the fairytale, Russia did not beta Germany= Disease, the winter, and space defeated Germany- Stalins cruelty to his own people defeated Germany- Not the Soviet Tactic of Deep Operations

 

[DaveC]

Actually I worked at the center of Military History at FT Leslie McNair

lol no you fucking didn't, sting.

You don't understand what deep operations are, you don't understand what you watched on enemy at the Gates was not deep operations at all, you simply don't understand.

you literally described an exact scene from that movie as if it were actual historical fact, and then misread my comment about it completely backwards, but sure, i'm the one in this conversation who simply doesn't understand. [emoji38]

 

[DaveC]

Deep Operations are a combined arms effort (do you know what that is)


It requires mobility and Counter mobility (do you know what that is)


It requires Mechanized units that are able to penetrate the enemy front, then have the speed to exploit the gaps.


Once you go on the offensive deep operations are only achievable with mobility.


What the Russians had was accidental defense in depth.


They used MASS on the offense with a defense in depth


The only really were able to use truly deep operations was during the cold war.


You are buying into the fairytale, Russia did not beta Germany= Disease, the winter, and space defeated Germany- Stalins cruelty to his own people defeated Germany- Not the Soviet Tactic of Deep Operations

[citation needed]

not even going to bother continuing with this until you post some real sources.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

[citation needed]

not even going to bother continuing with this until you post some real sources.

Good, Unlike you I don't need sources These are things I just know.

You the uniniated are confusing a defense in depth with counter offensive with deep operations.

Deep operations are a combined arms mechanized strategy akin the 80's US Doctrine of an Air land battle (FM 100-5 off the top of my head).

The Soviet didn't really use what you think as deep operations until the 60's. Why?

Because a lack of mechaniztion. Go back and read the doctrine you quoted and the Russians wrote in the 20's and 30's In it they say well we really can't do this at this time because of technology" or something like it. There is a pretty good article from the Army War College Magazine called "parameters" that talks about it. If I find it ill post it.

What the Soviets really used in WW2 was defense in depth, in which they wore the enemy down, really weather and disease did more. The tried deep ops but it really didn't work and they never really doctrinally applied it. Even in the article you quoted it said it met with mixed results and failed to achieve the objectives the soviets wanted. Which is still misleading because in contend it wasn't DO but DD.

The Russians can apply it now as the USSR could in the Cold War because they are actually more mechanized than the West- They have a seat for every butt, we don't. They did not have this in WW2 in using total dismounts can never tactically execute the Soviet doctrine of DO

You have bought into the fairy tale, you are confusing doctrine with actual executed tactics. they are not the same -- Free your mind

Now you think I didn't work the CMH at FT Leslie McNair- really should I describe that its about 5 miles from where the nats play, or that The homes of the Joint Chief's look beautiful up against the Potomac, or should I describe the barracks of the 3rd Infantry Regiment (not division, the division is at FT Stewart) the regiment "the old Guard" or the really Good Ethiopian restaurant across from the Canadian embassy I used to take my team to.

Yeah I was never there.

BTW tonight I am teaching an OPD (Officer Professional Development) on the relevance of the DIME in the age of Hybrid Conflict. Too bad you cant be there maybe you would learn something.

 

[DaveC]

Unlike you I don't need sources These are things I just know.

right, because people who work the kind of job you claim to have would totally say things like this. bye felicia.

 

[Diemen]

Hey Magnus, if you’re going to go around loudly proclaiming that everyone else is wrong and you’re right, you should be able to back that up with sources. That’s how debate works. Simply saying “you know it’s true” doesn’t make it so if you can’t verify it with reputable sources.

Otherwise you just look like you don’t actually have the sources to back it up.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

right, because people who work the kind of job you claim to have would totally say things like this. bye felicia.

Well they would because its right.

One other mistake I didn't catch earlier on your elementary school level rant, was the fact you gave credit to the socialists in WW1 when (and I could be wrong but pretty sure I'm not) all the victories your subscribed to Russia were carried out by the Imperial Russian Army, the Tsarists not the socialists, some might have fell into the transitional period before the socialists took over, Ill have to double check, but for the most part you were wrong again.

 

[DaveC]

Well they would because its right.

yep, professional historians sure do love to say "i don't need sources because i just know it". also i really like how i posted a citation from the military history center of the US army and then in the very next post it just so happens that you conveniently worked there for many years. sure, and i used to be the queen of england.

One other mistake I didn't catch earlier on your elementary school level rant, was the fact you gave credit to the socialists in WW1 when (and I could be wrong but pretty sure I'm not) all the victories your subscribed to Russia were carried out by the Imperial Russian Army

you didn't catch that "mistake" earlier because i didn't say that, at all, in any fashion. at least you've proved my theory that you didn't actually read what i said.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

But back to the Original point: Pence was right


show me were socialism helped win WW1- No where because all of Russia's major victories were carried out be Tsarits, like I said there could be some in transition, but if I recall the transitional GVT wasn't socialist in ruled from like March to October, with the USSR not fully established until 21 or 22.


WW2: Yes the war in Russia caused a lot of loses to the Germans and the Soviets lost a lot of soldiers, However it was the US industrial base that won WW2 period end of story.


So yes Pence is right

 

[Magnus Maximus]

you didn't catch that "mistake" earlier because i didn't say that, at all, in any fashion. at least you've proved my theory that you didn't actually read what i said.

Really you didn't say this: and before you say well I meant Tsarist Russia, you know I was referring to Socialist Russia as this has been the whole content of the debate.


Quote:
3. Socialism had no role in WW1 in fact it almost caused the west to lose the war (but also proving they could win with out Russia) the entente did not "win without russia". in fact they almost certainly would not have won without russia, as the thousands of soldiers fighting on the eastern front against the russian empire would have been able to fight in verdun and flanders. the brusilov offensive almost broke the entire eastern german army and the russians advanced so far that they really only had to stop because they lost momentum due to outrunning their supply lines. even after the revolution and the treaty of brest-litovsk the germans still had to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the occupation zones in poland, the baltics, and ukraine and somehow that all counts as "winning without russia". lmao please.

 

[DaveC]

with reading comprehension skills like this there is absolutely zero chance you are a professional academic of any type.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Hey Magnus, if you’re going to go around loudly proclaiming that everyone else is wrong and you’re right, you should be able to back that up with sources. That’s how debate works. Simply saying “you know it’s true” doesn’t make it so if you can’t verify it with reputable sources.

Otherwise you just look like you don’t actually have the sources to back it up.

Here's the deal, I have had many of these debates before with folks who believe in the fairytale of the Russian Army, and how it was the Russians who really won the war, when it's simply not true. I am not going to go home and grab some books and cite sources that's a waste of time, Just like Dave C isn't citing sources either.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Dave C - you simply don't know what Deep Operations are you errounsely credited the attrition of the German Army to Soviet Deep War doctrine, which is wrong. Deep Operations are a mobile combined arms effort- German Blitzkrieg is deep operations, American Combined Arms doctrine are deep operations. Soviet Deep Operations did not stop the German advance to Moscow, not one bit. That was a defense in depth. With a CO that was basically a steam roller.


You want some sources: Earl Zimeke US Army War College 1983


SDB was not really implemented since its creators were killed in the purges of the 1930s.
The USSR’s biggest victory, the battle of Stalingrad, was actually a case of modern maneuver warfare. The Red Army won by encircling the Nazi army and essentially starving it to death.
SDB was only implemented (barely) in late WW2 when a massive Red Army was steamrolling through Eastern Europe.




You have a big massive army, so you build a theory about drowning the enemy. Then, the theory fails early in WW2. It’s proponents are murdered and what’s left is useless. Then, by chance, a situation arises where SDB makes sense. Once that passes, SDB is praised in order to make the victory homegrown and logical rather than accidental. Once history moves on, the theory is quietly dropped and SDB becomes the province of military historians in needs of something to say about the cryptic Soviet military.

 

[Diemen]

Fine. I’ll say this: your entire history of posting on this forum has been antagonistic and combative - in the NHL thread and in here. Find a different way of interacting.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Fine. I’ll say this: your entire history of posting on this forum has been antagonistic and combative - in the NHL thread and in here. Find a different way of interacting.

So dave's insults against me are ok?


This what started my losing my Religion with him:


Originally Posted by DaveC
lol. the idea that the western allies could have won the war outright without the soviets (and that the soviets were doomed without "western resupply") is so utterly asinine and historically ignorant that i almost don't even want to bother refuting this objectively dumb post. but i will anyways, for funsies.


Even though even Stalin said they couldn't cope without western resupply

it wouldn't have got belligerent at all if not for this, and several other statements made.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Victor David Hanson:


https://www.nationalreview.com/2015...ies-winning-world-war-ii-victor-davis-hanson/


Once the United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Axis cause was largely doomed. America mobilized 12 million soldiers — about the same number as did the Soviet Union, despite having a population of about 40 million fewer citizens.


American war production proved astonishing. At the huge Willow Run plant in Michigan, the greatest generation turned out a B-24 heavy bomber every hour. A single shipyard could mass-produce an ocean-going Liberty merchant ship from scratch in a week.
In just four years, the United States would produce more airplanes than all of the major war powers combined. Germany, Japan, Italy, and the Soviet Union could not build a successful four-engine heavy bomber. America, in contrast, produced 34,000 excellent B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s.

By 1944, the new U.S. Navy had become the largest in the history of civilization at more than 6,000 ships. Its B-29 heavy bomber program and Manhattan Project efforts together cost more $50 billion in today’s dollars.

At the same time, the U.S. supplied the Soviet Union with 400,000 heavy trucks, 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 railcars, and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, food, clothing, and strategic resources. By 1943–44, the U.S. also supplied about 20 percent of Britain’s munitions.

the Allies won by "sheer weight of material strength." Richard Overy


There was no sight in the war that so impressed me with the industrial might of America as the wreckage on the landing beaches,” he recalled in his memoirs. “To any other nation the disaster would have been almost decisive. But so great was America’s productive capacity that the great storm occasioned little more than a ripple in the development of our build-up.”


Dwight Eisenhower


https://www.history.com/how-detroit-won-world-war-ii


The Soviet system was all but shattered in 1941, two-thirds of its heavy industrial capacity captured and its vast air and tank armies destroyed. This was a war, Ribbentrop ruefully concluded, that 'Germany could have won'.


The air and tank armies were reorganised to mimic the German Panzer divisions and air fleets; communication and intelligence were vastly improved (helped by a huge supply of American and British telephone equipment and cable); training for officers and men was designed to encourage greater initiative; and the technology available was hastily modernised to match German

The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.


There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

But above all it owed a great deal to the character of American industrial capitalism, with its 'can-do' ethos, high levels of engineering skill and tough-minded entrepreneurs. After a decade of recession the manufacturing community had a good deal of spare, unemployed capacity to absorb (unlike Germany, where full employment was reached well before the outbreak of war, and gains in output could only really come from improvements in productivity).


Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy (Pimlico Press, 1996)
The Battle by Richard Overy (Penguin Books, 2001)


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...n-world-war-ii-it-wasnt-nuclear-weapons-22020


The Allied powers eventually built more long-range bombers and aircraft carriers and became highly efficient at transporting troops and machines to faraway theaters, Hanson said. By 1945, the gross domestic product of the U.S. economy alone was almost larger than that of the Axis and other Allied powers combined.

So as you see Pence was right, it was American Capitalism and sheer industrial force that won WW2 - Along with a Island full of Bull Dogs that wouldn't give up. (who weren't socialists either)

 

[Magnus Maximus]

I had to also add the US mobilized 14M servicemen and women or roughly 11% of the population. Oh and BTW fighting a two front war. When did Russia join against Japan (late 44 I believe; sorry I was wrong August 45)


The USSR mobilized around 12-17M at one time


At its peak an estimated 12.5 million men and women fought in the Red Army. It is unknown how many were killed but after the peace was signed the government claimed that over 20 million Soviet citizens died during the Second World War. With a population of 170 Million


So for sure per capita More US Citizens were in the Armed Services at the peak of their power.


ALSO DON"T FORGET THAT RUSSIA HELPED START THE WAR MADE A DEAL WITH GERMANY INVADED POLAND WITH GERMANY. That brought FRance and GB into the war with Germany in the first place.


The Soviet Union in World War II is the story of several wars. When World War II started, the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Nazi Germany in a relatively conventional European interstate war. Although the Germans did most of the fighting in Poland, the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part. Until 22 June 1941, when Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union provided Nazi Germany with large quantities of strategic raw materials. Furthermore, the Soviet Union gave Germany access to the Far East, and especially rubber, which was brought through Siberia. During this time it also fought the 1939–1940 “Winter War” with Finland and, in 1940, occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and what is now Moldova.

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0077.xml

So one could argue that the USSR brought it on themselves and had they not buddied up to Germany WW2 might not have started or at least the way it did.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Vintage STING.

Oh do we have a returning fellow under a new name?