The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe! - Page 10




 
--
 
September 10th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
What do you mean flawed, didn't the Russians turned the tide of the war when they destroyed 6th Army at Stalingrad. They didn't win it at that point but it certainly shifted the momentum on their side.

And what does one Christian country invading another as you say it have to do with this? I was mearly giving an example of war as whole. Anyhow I would hardly call Hiltler Christian, since most of his beliefs had to do with astrology and mysticsm and so did most of his deptuties, and Stalin was a Communist Atheist for crying out loud, so I think its your views that may be grossly flawed.

Anyways I have read "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian " and "Lost Victories" by Erich von Manstien so I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the Russian Front during WWII, I wouldn't classify myself completely ignorant on this subject as you would like to put it.
Hey Gladius! Lighten up man. I don't think I said anywhere that you were ignorant on the subject - I just said that the analogy you posted wasn't supporting your position and that what you said regarding Germany V Soviet Union in WW2 was grossly flawed. It was.

In your retort you're actually demonstrating far greater knowledge of the subject than one would assume reading what you posted before. If you've even heard of either of those books (in particular Manstein's book) then you demonstrate a well above average exposure to the subject.

True neither Hitler or Stalin were exactly model Christians (haha) but their nations were by and large (although I give you that the Soviet Union including a diverse mix of religions including Islam).

In WW2 it's true that Stalingrad was a hugely significant event. But it's impact on the outcome of WW2 is overstated. There was no one event that really swung the tide and I've come to realise this the more and more I read about this time period. But that's a matter for another thread.

God is right when he states that there's a much larger technological gap between the EU and any proposed Islamic superstate. The greatest weapon any such state would have is already here - terrorism on a new scale. I imagine that rolling waves of suicide bombers and sleeper suicide bomber cells suddenly activated in a dozen countries would have a far more devastating effect on the EU than any massed military invasion, which almost certainly would result in catastrophic losses on the Islam side.
September 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The fanatical idea the "modern technology is evil" is the biggest obstacle in the way of a united Islam being a significant power to be reconned with. They're attitudes towards women doesn't help either, since this limits the potential of their industrial strength by cutting their workforce in half. The only threat I can see coming from Islam right now is the one that Doppelganger stated: a terrorist based threat.

Still, Gladius is quite correct that Islam has an underlying ideal of uniting to convert the world and conquer all who would oppose them. That ideology has tremendous potential. If we saw a fanatical Muslim movement that accepted/accomidated modern norms more, and if it could supercede the current fanatics, then we're talking about a movement that could shake that world ... IF the whole of Islam willingly gets onboard.

My point about the Roman Catholic Church is a simple one: Christians still greatly outnumber Muslims. That may change, certainly. Also, you have a giant chunk of Islam stuck in India, where I don't know that they can hope to unite with the rest.

Quote:
God is right
Aren't I always.
September 10th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
God is right
Aren't I always.
Nope! 8)
--
September 11th, 2004  
gladius
 
lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Hey Gladius! Lighten up man. I don't think I said anywhere that you were ignorant on the subject - I just said that the analogy you posted wasn't supporting your position and that what you said regarding Germany V Soviet Union in WW2 was grossly flawed. It was.
The reason I'm a little ticked off (a little, not a lot mind you) is that you keep saying my analogy regarding Russia vs Germany is so grossly flawed.

I was making a simple illustration of how a significantly superior numerical advantage can overcome superior technology and tactics.

If you are going to go after every single little minutia and detail to make the comparison, which was what I think you where going for, of course it's not going to match. I think most people here can understand the basics of what I'm trying to point out.

Maybe these other examples are better of how a superior numerical advantage can sometimes overcome a superior technological or equipment advantage.

The Muslim Ottomans counquered a sizable part of Europe even though the Europeans had a technological advantage, they offset this with superior numbers.

In the Iran/Iraq war the Iranians use their advantage in fanaticsm and manpower to stop the Iraqis from conquering them, since Iran was running out of weapons and no one wanted to sell Iran weapons. They were using boys with sticks to detonate the mines so their soldiers could pass to attack. In fact the Iraqis were killing so many Iranians that they were using their bodies to build bridges over streams and gaps so their tanks could cross.

The Chinese in the Korean war used their numerical advantage to push back the UN forces.

So what I'm saying is entireley possible that the Islamic empire can challenge the Europeans by using their numerical advantage to offset their technological or any other disadvantage they have. The same sort of way the Russains used numerical superiority to beat back the Germans. If your looking for this analogy to be exactly the same, it's not, I'm giving and example from history to illustrate my point of how this would be possible.

Quote:
The greatest weapon any such state would have is already here - terrorism on a new scale. I imagine that rolling waves of suicide bombers and sleeper suicide bomber cells suddenly activated in a dozen countries would have a far more devastating effect on the EU than any massed military invasion, which almost certainly would result in catastrophic losses on the Islam side.
How about both at the same time.

Anyways both you and godofthunder are right about the technological gap and other stuff, and yes if that were to happen now as is, the Europeans would crush the Islamics.

I even read the article that Chocobo posted in regards to why Islam can't unite, you know what... the author is mostly right. She even goes as far as to name a Mahdi in the past but fails to realize that the threat of a future Mahdi.

Like god already said even though they are in a backward state the potential is there. The troubling part about it is that it wil only take one man to try to make this happen, instead of a coming together of all the peoples by mutual concensus, which if it were up to that, would probably never happen and we would beat them easilly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
They're attitudes towards women doesn't help either, since this limits the potential of their industrial strength by cutting their workforce in half.
This is a little off the main point of the discussion but I thought I'd include this for those of you who regard Biblical prophesy as having an impact on this. The Bible does say that this coming leader will have no regard for the desire of women, meaning to say that he won't care for their rights or freedoms.

Anyways they can still force them to work whether they had rights or not. The Japanese during WWII had the same attitude regarding the fact that they didn't let women work, but as the war went on they quickly were sending them into factories.
September 11th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Bear in mind that nothing I've said or (I'm sure) Doppelganger has said is trying to offend you, just trying to discuss things from all sides. If my comments are upsetting you, I'll certainly stop.
September 11th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Hey Gladius! Lighten up man. I don't think I said anywhere that you were ignorant on the subject - I just said that the analogy you posted wasn't supporting your position and that what you said regarding Germany V Soviet Union in WW2 was grossly flawed. It was.
The reason I'm a little ticked off (a little, not a lot mind you) is that you keep saying my analogy regarding Russia vs Germany is so grossly flawed.

I was making a simple illustration of how a significantly superior numerical advantage can overcome superior technology and tactics.

If you are going to go after every single little minutia and detail to make the comparison, which was what I think you where going for, of course it's not going to match. I think most people here can understand the basics of what I'm trying to point out.
Was not my intention to tick you off so apologies if I did. I still think what you posted seemed to show a lack of knowledge of the time period and I still think it's deeply flawed (you used much better examples in your response to my reply). It's never my intention to rile or upset anyone and I welcome debate such as this. Your thread is a good one and whilst I disagree with a large part of your argument I still welcome the opportunity for debate. After all, your opinion isn't any more or less worthy than mine at the end of the day. (I still think I'm right though )
September 12th, 2004  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Bear in mind that nothing I've said or (I'm sure) Doppelganger has said is trying to offend you, just trying to discuss things from all sides. If my comments are upsetting you, I'll certainly stop.
Actually none of your comments have upset me, all your reasons were valid and good, and you gave examples for why. And in alot of cases I think you're right and I agree with some of them. You never said I was wrong without giving any reason at all why.
I respect any welcome any of your future comments, as well as anyone elses as long as they give good reason for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Was not my intention to tick you off so apologies if I did. I still think what you posted seemed to show a lack of knowledge of the time period and I still think it's deeply flawed (you used much better examples in your response to my reply). It's never my intention to rile or upset anyone and I welcome debate such as this. Your thread is a good one and whilst I disagree with a large part of your argument I still welcome the opportunity for debate. After all, your opinion isn't any more or less worthy than mine at the end of the day. (I still think I'm right though )
I welcome everyones opinion but I perfer it has reason to it, rather than a condesending one, simply stating that I am grossly wrong.

If it is deeply flawed, how so? You keep saying it is deeply and so wrong without giving any examples.

Why can't the Russain front be compared to all the examples I had given.
Was I not pointing that numerical superiority can be used to overcome an enemy with a technological and tactical edge.

Even if the Russain front isn't the best example, you can't say that they didn't use their numerical superiority to offset the technological and tatctical edge of the enemy, just like the rest of my other examples.

Granted there where many factors involed in this, and I was giving it as an example as a whole, its NOT going to be the same in every detail for any future conflict but the basic premise is there. If that's what your looking for then of course it's not going to match.

In any case you can't argue that a technological edge cannot be sometimes offset or overcome with overwhelming numerical superiority. This is simply the fact I was trying to state that will make what I am saying posible, Russian Front or, no Russian Front.

But if you still think you're right without giving any reasons then there's nothing I can do about that, it up to you, your certainly welcome to that oppinion.

-------------------------------------------------

This is on a little different path from the main discussion an is adressed to anyone reading as an example of what I am saying is possible, keeping mind its just an example.

How good is a T-90 compared to a LeClerk or Leopard II, a lot or, just a little, me personally I'm not sure.

What if the the Islamic empire with all the oil money they have were to purchase enough of these to give them a numerical advantage at around 5 to 1 or maybe even 10 to 1. Couldn't they be more than a match for the European armored divisions. Maybe not even this much maybe 3 to 1 backed up T-72s and T-80s at 15 to 1. Still a good match for the EU divisions.

Granted this is only one of many weapons system involved, but I'm just giving this as an example as a whole why what I'm saying is possible.
September 12th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Inner networks would be key to "hooking" any western nation into a fight for a long time. Force them to fight in their own streets and cities, at random. Force them to use martial law. Only then could a strike be made at the borders, when their economy is fragile, and the people are scared. Give them fake fronts, try to pour as many guerrillas in the cities to cause random havoc. Still, even if all this were to happen, the MEC would take tragic losses. The mobility and precision of the western military's is awesome. But if they grapple into well populated areas, they might be a little reluctant to use that artillery.

But as I said awhile ago, me, personally, I think it has already begun. Look at the attempts to purify the region! Look how they use populated cities as fortresses, and feed their troop supply with our own attacks on their civilians! The world is slowly being rocked by terrorist attacks, and It'll probably get worse as we proceed in the coming years with attacks on muslim nations.

I'm thinking.... what makes a war great? a world war? Huge loss of life? What if the huge loss of life isn't the military men and women, nor the jihadist themselves, rather, the civilians. Afterall, in their eyes, they are wageing war on all infidels, not just the ones wearing camouflage.
September 12th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Was not my intention to tick you off so apologies if I did. I still think what you posted seemed to show a lack of knowledge of the time period and I still think it's deeply flawed (you used much better examples in your response to my reply). It's never my intention to rile or upset anyone and I welcome debate such as this. Your thread is a good one and whilst I disagree with a large part of your argument I still welcome the opportunity for debate. After all, your opinion isn't any more or less worthy than mine at the end of the day. (I still think I'm right though )
I welcome everyones opinion but I perfer it has reason to it, rather than a condesending one, simply stating that I am grossly wrong.

If it is deeply flawed, how so? You keep saying it is deeply and so wrong without giving any examples.

Why can't the Russain front be compared to all the examples I had given.
Was I not pointing that numerical superiority can be used to overcome an enemy with a technological and tactical edge.

Even if the Russain front isn't the best example, you can't say that they didn't use their numerical superiority to offset the technological and tatctical edge of the enemy, just like the rest of my other examples.

Granted there where many factors involed in this, and I was giving it as an example as a whole, its NOT going to be the same in every detail for any future conflict but the basic premise is there. If that's what your looking for then of course it's not going to match.

In any case you can't argue that a technological edge cannot be sometimes offset or overcome with overwhelming numerical superiority. This is simply the fact I was trying to state that will make what I am saying posible, Russian Front or, no Russian Front.

But if you still think you're right without giving any reasons then there's nothing I can do about that, it up to you, your certainly welcome to that oppinion.
Ok Gladius, I'll tell you why I think it's deeply flawed. I didn't really want to get into this and derail your thread but you appear to want an answer. BTW, I wasn't being condescending but if you believe I was then I can't help that. Is 'deeply or grossly flawed' a byword for condescending now? It wasn't the last time I checked.

Ok. The Soviet Union did not use any overwhelming numerical advantage to defeat Germany. They had a numerical superiority yes but that wasn't the reason why they won. Also, the Germans did not really have a technological edge over the Soviet Union. Ignore the Wonder Weapons as they were never a factor on the Ostfront. In most cases during the first year of Babarossa the Red Army had superior tanks. There was nothing to match the KV-1 and the T-34 was superior to all German tanks except perhaps the Panzer IV with the long-barrelled KwK 75mm gun. Even then my money would be on the T-34. Only when the Tiger and later on the Panther appeared did the Wehrmacht have anything to take on a T-34 and be confident of success.

This is where your argument is deeply flawed. You ignore the real reasons why Germany lost. You stated that the the Germans crushed several Soviet Armies and it only took the Red Army to crush one German Army for the tide to be turned. In truth there was no sudden turning of the tide. The Soviets gradually came out on top after a series of bad strategic mistakes by the Germans, and by the pressure being applied to them from other fronts. For example, whilst the German 6th Armee and part of 4th Panzerarmee were trapped and destroyed at Stalingrad the Soviets were busy losing half a million men and 1700 tanks further north in the Rzhev salient in the ill-fated Operation Mars.

If you really want to point at a decisive moment it's at Kursk and not Stalingrad. This battle is important not because it failed and not because of German losses (they were actually 20% of Soviet casualties) but because it happened in the first place. The Germans had a chance to completely collapse the entire Soviet South and Southwestern Fronts. IMO if OKH had used Manstein's 'backhand' plan instead the entire outcome of WW2 might have been different.

The Germans lost because of bad strategic mistakes, logistics (this was huge), the Allied Lend-Lease effort (this was critical), failure to exploit local population unhappiness (in the Ukraine for example), the massive industrial capacity of the Allies (in particular the US), fighting a 3 front war, failure to fight to their own strengths (i.e. mobility and tactical superiority), failure to adapt their own industry to a war footing quickly enough, frittering away of vital resources on Wonder Weapons, the frittering away of vital resources on the 'final solution'. Also, the impact of how the Red Army was able to recover and fight back cannot be understated. Although they never came even close to matching the tactical ability and professionalism of the Wehrmacht they were mightily effective in using Blitzkrieg for their own means.
September 12th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
To tell you the truth, there is a much better example of what you are digging for, even though it was a stalemate in the end: the Korean War, specifically after China invaded. The UN forces were caught off-guard and driven back by the initial flood of Chinese troops. There is no doubt that China and North Korea had every intention of taking the whole of the Korean peninsula and pushed the UN forces well past the 38th parallel. The UN forces managed to improvise numerous methods to even the odds. The Chinese were incredibly poorly equipped compared to the UN forces, but had an overwhelming numerical advantage.

This works better as a model for comparison because, first and foremost, we see the numerically overwhelming force attacking, not defending. Secondly, we have a significant technological/industrial gap in the favor of the smaller UN forces. You also have an ideology (Communism) being the underlying driving force on the numerically superior side, which fits pretty well.

I think Gladius has a decent example by using the Ostfront as a very general category of poorly managed overwhelming numerical superiority triumphing over a numerically inferior force that was brilliantly run in most instances. In depth details are not as important for the comparison because (I believe) it is being used in a very general sense. Its a poor example of technology vs lack of technology though.

The discussion has proposed traditional invasion, migratory cultural invasion and the possible launch of a widespread series of terrorist attacks. Lets consider the possibility of all three hitting full-force simultaneously.

The thing that ruins the idea for me is that Islam doesn't have an overwhelming numercial advantage, and the fact that China+India vastly outnumbers them, yet are being proposed to be left sitting on the sidelines. I can't reconcile that to reality, especially India having some serious bad blood with the world of Islam.