Royal Danish Navy's 500 years birthday

[Kitschum]

It won't need to when these come streaming towards shore:

Huh? That's not hi-tech. It could easily run an old ww1 mine that's not marked on your tourist maps.

What your beaches going to do now?

We have invisible guns in the sands and rocks in those beaches. There are invisible ships patrolling the surface and invisible subs below, and their missiles will mostly come too fast for your ancient defensive systems.

Stupid dick-measuring aside, most of the US navy is blue-water and built to fight ww2 all over again. They can't even defeat a determined medieval opponent (the Taliban). What would happen if the US would fight somebody of similar technological sophistication? What if the navy found itself in brown waters? It's an interesting question not easily dismissed. Of course, the low general quality of US servicemen compared to Europeans, which is well-known from both ww1 and ww2, must be taken into account as well.

[Kitschum]

Yes, we're all sure you know better than the military leadership of all the world's most powerful militaries.

No, I wouldn't be so presumptious, but I am cynical. At best, those will be built to provide economic stimulus for the shipyards. It doesn't matter the ships they build are obsolete then.

[Al B. Sure!]

Of course, the low general quality of US servicemen compared to Europeans, which is well-known from both ww1 and ww2, must be taken into account as well.

German soldiers, man for man, were fantastic. But the rest of the continent? Not even counting the French, Dutch, and Italians who all sucked miserably, the Brits were hardly worth much and the Russians were pathetic on the individual level.

You'd have to explain this one. It's not well-known here.

[Kitschum]

German soldiers, man for man, were fantastic. But the rest of the continent? Not even counting the French, Dutch, and Italians who all sucked miserably, the Brits were hardly worth much and the Russians were pathetic on the individual level.

You'd have to explain this one. It's not well-known here.

What's so bad about the Dutch? Surely they were similar to the Germans as they are their basically the same.

One German was worth 3-4 US soldiers. Finns, and by extension other Scandinavians, were their equal or better as shown in the Continuation and Lapland wars. I can't believe the Italians or other Southern Europeans are any worse than US if technology was equal, but I admit I might have to analyze this closer. I wasn't really counting on them anyway.

Russians are hardly in Europe so I won't comment on them.

[Al B. Sure!]

What's so bad about the Dutch? Surely they were similar to the Germans as they are their basically the same.

One German was worth 3-4 US soldiers. Finns, and by extension other Scandinavians, were their equal or better as shown in the Continuation and Lapland wars. I can't believe the Italians or other Southern Europeans are any worse than US if technology was equal, but I admit I might have to analyze this closer. I wasn't really counting on them anyway.

Russians are hardly in Europe so I won't comment on them.

1 German being worth 3-4 US Army doesn't mean much when how many Brits would be equivalent to 1 German, how many French?

Look, I wish I had the book on me, but I read a book that referenced a historian who studied force multiplication and came up with how much the average soldier of various countries was worth compared to a base level of 1, 1 being a US Army soldier.

Germans I believe were around 1.6 or so and Russians were like .70. Brits were like .9

I don't remember the exact numbers and it was a long time ago but it was something like that.


And what's wrong with the Dutch? Explain to me how the Dutch military of WW2 was anywhere near the same as Germany? Germany whipped them good.

[Al B. Sure!]

Trevor N. Dupuy referenced in Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War... I can't copy and paste it since I'm looking at it through Amazon.com but through analysis of 81 different engagements...

Average combat efficiency of British set to 1, Americans were 1.1, and Germans 1.45

That means that the Brits needed to bring 45% more troops or the equivalent of 45% more troops in equipment to have an even chance at defeating the Germans.


And as for Swedes and Dutch and anybody like that... I fail to see how anybody else in Europe even matters.

[Kitschum]

Germans I believe were around 1.6 or so and Russians were like .70. Brits were like .9

Most of the US/UK origined statistics are pure propaganda so if they say it's 1.6 the real number is at least twice that, i.e. more than 3, maybe up to 5. The Americans were clearly worst of the Western Allies as their poor performance in ww1 and the Spanish Civil War (international brigades) confirms. It's well documented how they disregarded tactics at first and repeated every mistake that had been made already. Clearly a characteristic of stubborn stupidity. Though some would call it heroic.

And what's wrong with the Dutch? Explain to me how the Dutch military of WW2 was anywhere near the same as Germany? Germany whipped them good.

Were they given a fair chance do you think? A country 1/10 the size with no natural borders surprise attacked? How did the Dutch units fare in the Waffen-SS? Just as the UK is lucky there's an English channel the US owes its existence to the Atlantic ocean. You shouldn't be so quick to judge the Dutch because they had an unfavorable starting position.

[Al B. Sure!]

Most of the US/UK origined statistics are pure propaganda so if they say it's 1.6 the real number is at least twice that, i.e. more than 3, maybe up to 5. The Americans were clearly worst of the Western Allies as their poor performance in ww1 and the Spanish Civil War (international brigades) confirms. It's well documented how they disregarded tactics at first and repeated every mistake that had been made already. Clearly a characteristic of stubborn stupidity. Though some would call it heroic.

Is this what they teach you in sit on your asses and twiddle your thumbs pro-Nazi Sweden? Sweden and Switzerland mightaswell have been part of the Reich.

What poor performance in WW1? America came in and completely broke the stalemate that had been happening for 4 ****ing years!

And don't forget anyway with regards to WW2, the US military's best troops were fighting in the Pacific.

[Kitschum]

Trevor N. Dupuy referenced in Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War... I can't copy and paste it since I'm looking at it through Amazon.com but through analysis of 81 different engagements...

Average combat efficiency of British set to 1, Americans were 1.1, and Germans 1.45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

Forces:

1,452,000 (by 25 July) Allied
380,000 (by 23 July) Germans

Casualties:

226,386 Allied, 4,101 planes, 4,000 tanks
209,875 German, 2,127 planes, 2,200 tanks and assault guns
(I don't know who Shulman is, but I doubt he's worked the German archives like Zetterling, so excuse me if I don't accept his higher figures)

So Allies have almost 4x superiority, but take more casualties. Huh.

I fail

Yes.

Is this what they teach you in sit on your asses and twiddle your thumbs pro-Nazi Sweden? Sweden and Switzerland mightaswell have been part of the Reich.

Sweden wasn't pro-Nazi but so what if it was? What's the relevance?

What poor performance in WW1? America came in and completely broke the stalemate that had been happening for 4 ****ing years!

Yes, the Americans arrived and repeated every mistake the French and Brits had already made for 3 years. Then served as reserves while the French and Brits went and won the thing.

And don't forget anyway with regards to WW2, the US military's best troops were fighting in the Pacific.

Were they performed even worse against the same number of Japanese that were smashed in a week by Zhukov. Not helping your case.

[Al B. Sure!]

Dumbass... D-Day was an amphibious invasion! Do you realize how difficult that is? You're assaulting from sea, a wide open beach with entrenched defenses on cliffs! Are you serious?

Dupuy accounted for things like terrain, entrenched defenses, etc.

[Al B. Sure!]

Were they performed even worse against the same number of Japanese that were smashed in a week by Zhukov. Not helping your case.

I wasn't aware that Zhukov was launching amphibious invasions of small atols with entrenched defenses... nor was I aware that he was fighting crack Imperial Japanese troops and not end-of-war conscripts.

[Asher]

I'm sure the Canadian soldiers scored higher than the American ones in WW2. Same with air aces.

[Kitschum]

Dumbass... D-Day was an amphibious invasion! Do you realize how difficult that is? You're assaulting from sea, a wide open beach with entrenched defenses on cliffs! Are you serious?

Dupuy accounted for things like terrain, entrenched defenses, etc.

Those are for the whole campaign, where the Allies enjoyed complete air and naval superiority I might add.

So I guess Dupuy used his 'judgment' to 'adjust' what were most likely already inflated figures as reported in US/UK regimental histories and not the German archival sources (which were only seriously looked into recently, by Zetterling especially). I wonder what kind of ratios a German historian would find on the same question.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm sure the Canadian soldiers scored higher than the American ones in WW2. Same with air aces.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_air_aces

[Kitschum]

I wasn't aware that Zhukov was launching amphibious invasions of small atols with entrenched defenses... nor was I aware that he was fighting crack Imperial Japanese troops and not end-of-war conscripts.

Starving "crack" troops. I'm guessing they were all Imperial and Japanese at that point.