if you say chinas army is better than usa your are wrong

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

The use of more lives to accomplish a military goal. That is numerical supremacy.

You will have to clear this up better, you're naming casualty numbers, that's all.

I am naming they who died in the defense of their country, be they trained or otherwise. That, in my opinion, is numerical supremacy.

So? According to you, despite these flaws with German strategy, they should have won. Because they had the superiority in tech and in materiel, the Germans should have been able to overrun the Soviets.

You aren't listening, the German's advantage of technology was taken away from them as a result of the winter. They had no problems turning the Russians around during the spring and summer of 1941 and 1942.

Exactly. Why weren't they able to followthrough and defeat them before the winter if not because of the sheer force of numbers the Russians had?

Once again, despite that, the Germans should have won, according to you, and I am merely taking your word literally, because of their technological superiority. They should have been able to overrun the Allies at the Ardennes because of their beginning materiel superiority. And, explain to me how the Allies could have lost more troops than they started out with if they did not have numerical supremacy at the end?

And again, you missed the point that while the Germans still had the Panzers, the Luftwaffe was non existant during the time. The technology advantage was signifigantly weakened. That, and the US Army was closing the technology gap quickly, you do know USAAF equipment was often superior to Luftwaffe equipment, right?

Notice how I didn't use the phrase "technological superiority." I used it in the beginning, because I was referring to the beginnings of the war. The Germans should have been able to overrun the Allies because of their inherent tech. advantages in the start, according to you. In the second part of my sentence, I recognize my fault and retract it. Materiel is the same as personel, only mechanized, like in tanks, planes, or guns.

CaptHawkeye

I am naming they who died in the defense of their country, be they trained or otherwise. That, in my opinion, is numerical supremacy.

Casualty numbers are hardly something to brag about, ever.

Exactly. Why weren't they able to followthrough and defeat them before the winter if not because of the sheer force of numbers the Russians had?

Because the Russians avoided the Germany Army most of the non winter months. They knew they couldn't stand and fight them in a typical slug out without the winter on their side.

Notice how I didn't use the phrase "technological superiority." I used it in the beginning, because I was referring to the beginnings of the war. The Germans should have been able to overrun the Allies because of their inherent tech. advantages in the start, according to you. In the second part of my sentence, I recognize my fault and retract it. Materiel is the same as personel, only mechanized, like in tanks, planes, or guns.

Even the best technology can hardly make up for a weak supply line and backwards command system. Which the Germans suffered from. And the Allies had.

[QUOTE="_Colossus_"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]Crappy organization and an uncertain political goal. MacArthur was fired, and the Army was caught in the open without a competant commander for miles. Of course it was either that or MacArrogant's Nuclear war. :roll:

CaptHawkeye

Of course, but what is making me angry is that people think that any battle or war can be won simply by ramming men into the meat grinder. War is a lot more complex then "let's see how many men I can rush into that position before they just run out of ammo".

The Axis powers made up more then just Germany, Italy and Japan. The Allied powers could never be considered the entire world. It was barely a majority either. And besides, how many of these countries actually contributed to the war? A lot of countries during WW2 just said "hey we can be allies to" and did nothing. Mainly because they wanted to be on the winning side. This is hardly "uniting".

Here's a map of what areas of the world were involved. While I will agree that many of the countries involved were allies in name only, the fact remains that they were allies of the warring nations, and as such makes them co-beligerents. I will also agree that Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to be using.

Which is absurd to hope for in war.

But this isn't a war. This is a debate between to anonymous members of an internet forum site, neither of which probably has much knowledge of wartime strategy, correct me if I'm wrong. And all strategies are formed in the perfect scenario, it is almost literally impossible to assume what move an enemy will make off the battlefield, not to mention the natural events that can skew a perfect strategy, if ever there was one.

Yes, and based on current US and Chinese economic standards, their is no reason for war at all. The Chinese want computer and information technology which the US supplies en masse. The US wants cheap labor in numbers, which the Chinese supply en masse.

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.
CaptHawkeye

Casualty numbers are hardly something to brag about, ever.

I'm not saying they are, I'm merely stating how we (the Allies) lost more lives to achieve the mission objectives of World War Two than did they (the Axis powers), despite their beginning technological advantage.

Because the Russians avoided the Germany Army most of the non winter months. They knew they couldn't stand and fight them in a typical slug out without the winter on their side.

So? The Germans should have been able to rout them, according to your belief that technology is more important than manpower, despite the Russian's wise decision to wait until winter to make their main assaults.

Even the best technology can hardly make up for a weak supply line and backwards command system. Which the Germans suffered from. And the Allies had.

You're confusing me, here. Are you saying the Allies had a weak supply line and backwards command system?

CaptHawkeye

Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.LJS9502_basic

Here's a map of what areas of the world were involved. While I will agree that many of the countries involved were allies in name only, the fact remains that they were allies of the warring nations, and as such makes them co-beligerents. I will also agree that Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to be using.

I'll concede the point partially. However, the allies joined together mainly because no axis nation provided them with anything, other then threats and racial xenophobia. In any case, the status of contemporary world trade and military alliances and rivalries rules out such an event against the United States. The US still has a long way to go before it is comparable a threat to the world as the axis were.

It was a special situation, and one that is likely to be as rare as a blue moon occuring at the exact same time hell freezes over.

But this isn't a war. This is a debate between to anonymous members of an internet forum site, neither of which probably has much knowledge of wartime strategy, correct me if I'm wrong. And all strategies are formed in the perfect scenario, it is almost literally impossible to assume what move an enemy will make off the battlefield, not to mention the natural events that can skew a perfect strategy, if ever there was one.
How is it impossible? Sun Tzu himself stated that knowing an enemy is the key to victory. I sincerely doubt he would say that if it was completely impossible to know one's enemy. No one "assumes" what moves their enemy will make unless they are desperate. Most battlefield scenarios are designed to take into account the personal goals and personalities of known enemy commanders.

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.

As does this one. Once the argument succumbs to speculation and dreaming it is essentially over.

That and i'm tired.

First of all, I think this is totally uncalled for and completely random. Secondly, you don't need to be in shape to kill another human being.SaugaGames

China's army just has more soldiers in it, but USA is stronger of an army.Flaming_Ape

How is it impossible? Sun Tzu himself stated that knowing an enemy is the key to victory. I sincerely doubt he would say that if it was completely impossible to know one's enemy. No one "assumes" what moves their enemy will make unless they are desperate. Most battlefield scenarios are designed to take into account the personal goals and personalities of known enemy commanders.

And that would be your weakness. You assume that people will follow their hearts and not their minds. And while I agree it's human nature to act on impulse, you assume we won't think things out. I know I was advocating, basically, the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants method of command, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't think things through before acting.

CaptHawkeye

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.

As does this one. Once the argument succumbs to speculation and dreaming it is essentially over.

That and i'm tired.

CaptHawkeye

I'm sorry, but it's completely idiotic to assume things can't and won't change overnight.

And, on an aside, mind if I track you?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.tycoonmike

I suppose if you were fighting nature you'd have to consider it.:|  At what point does strategizing over the possible outcomes your enemy may take does earthquakes become involved? 

of course we are better than china, no one should doubt that we hvae superior technology and training in every senseUrbanSpartan125

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.LJS9502_basic

I suppose if you were fighting nature you'd have to consider it.:| At what point does strategizing over the possible outcomes your enemy may take does earthquakes become involved?

sure chinas ground force are bigger but thats only because they have 1billion people
plus most of there hardware is still lagging behind it basically
a 300 lb fat man versus a 250 pound man whos is in shape and is all muscle

cliffs: us>china
MrJesusisnthere

Chinese food rocks.SempiternalFett

sure chinas ground force are bigger but thats only because they have 1billion people
plus most of there hardware is still lagging behind it basically
a 300 lb fat man versus a 250 pound man whos is in shape and is all muscle

cliffs: us>china
MrJesusisnthere

Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!slackersunited

They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...Bourbons3

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...CaptHawkeye

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.

[QUOTE="slackersunited"][QUOTE="Dasc00"][QUOTE="slackersunited"]Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!Dasc00

Chinese food rocks.SempiternalFett

Why do we have to have conflict with China?DaveGamer_05

sure chinas ground force are bigger but thats only because they have 1billion people
plus most of there hardware is still lagging behind it basically
a 300 lb fat man versus a 250 pound man whos is in shape and is all muscle

cliffs: us>china
MrJesusisnthere

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...tycoonmike

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.

Weren't you just saying how something like that could not predicted? By your previous logic, their is no reason to assume they would fight back.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...CaptHawkeye

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.

Weren't you just saying how something like that could not predicted? By your previous logic, their is no reason to assume they would fight back.