Was d-day land assault necessary?

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

slicknet

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

[QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

dealjobber

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeNicktehImperial

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

Well, there had to be a reason to keep them from flying overhead. Too many AA guns in place, maybe? Maybe the bombs available at the time weren't enough to penetrate those bunkers.

I'm sure they would have bombed that area if they could have.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

So I geuss the British and Canadians should've not sent any troops in D-day because America outnumbered them???

[QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Other than the "People die in war." you are totally wrong. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the US would accept nothing less than a complete surrender.

[QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

People call it cowardice, while I call it a method of utilizing weaponry to assist in battle.

Regardless, probably at the time D-Day was necessary.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

imsomebody

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Other than the "People die in war." you are totally wrong. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the US would accept nothing less than a complete surrender.

The Japanese wouldn't accept Surrender or any "defeatist" talk, until they saw the true destruction we could unleash.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeNicktehImperial

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

So I geuss the British and Canadians should've not sent any troops in D-day because America outnumbered them???

What I was trying to get at was that if it weren't for the USSR the allies would have used the same strategy against the Nazis as the one they used against the Japanese.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

So I geuss the British and Canadians should've not sent any troops in D-day because America outnumbered them???

What I was trying to get at was that if it weren't for the USSR the allies would have used the same strategy against the Nazis as the one they used against the Japanese.

The Russians didn't win singlehandedly....

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

Veemon_X

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

People call it cowardice, while I call it a method of utilizing weaponry to assist in battle.

Regardless, probably at the time it was necessary.

I agree, theres no doubt there would have been massive fear, but to prove yourselves through sending men into target practice when the UK and America had the planes and ships and guns(or did they?)to flatten the germans into defeat seems unneeded.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Other than the "People die in war." you are totally wrong. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the US would accept nothing less than a complete surrender.

The Japanese wouldn't accept Surrender or any "defeatist" talk, until they saw the true destruction we could unleash.

I disagree.

germans conquered alot of countries that we wanted to liberate, not completey destroy. we neady to invade france and kick germany out!pete_merlin

I like this answer.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeNicktehImperial

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

So I geuss the British and Canadians should've not sent any troops in D-day because America outnumbered them???

What I was trying to get at was that if it weren't for the USSR the allies would have used the same strategy against the Nazis as the one they used against the Japanese.

The Russians didn't win singlehandedly....

They could have "liberated" Europe on their own.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Other than the "People die in war." you are totally wrong. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the US would accept nothing less than a complete surrender.

The Japanese wouldn't accept Surrender or any "defeatist" talk, until they saw the true destruction we could unleash.

no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jews

no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsmat_the_cat

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsOleg_Huzwog

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

[QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It does it certain cases.....The Russians againest Napolean is a prime example.

The Russian retreated and used a burning tatic which arguablly became the downfall of Napolean.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsjointed

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

I don't want to sound like a patriotic redneck, but America isn't as evil as everyone simply makes it out to be.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsNicktehImperial

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

I don't want to sound like a patriotic redneck, but America isn't as evil as everyone simply makes it out to be.

This has nothing to do with America being more evil than other nations....The manhattan project was a huge money drainer, and America needed to show off their new weapon...Since, that would ensure them a super power status. Britain (or any other industrialized country) would have done the same thing.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsjointed

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

I don't want to sound like a patriotic redneck, but America isn't as evil as everyone simply makes it out to be.

This has nothing to do with America being more evil than other nations....The manhattan project was a huge money drainer, and America needed to show off their new weapon...Since, that would ensure them a super power status. Britain (or any other industrialized country) would have done the same thing.

I don't know about that at all. Truman struggled with that decision for years but was able to come to terms with it because it save more lives than killed. Japan was not going to surrender and had made no overtures to do so. They were willing to fight to the last and given their history and culture, that's not hard to imagine.

Done a bit of research and the axis were over 1/2 million strong in the area, so pretty hard to bomb them into submission they would be able to regroup and gain strenth i guess, the official figure for the battle of Normandy(D-Day) is 425,000 or soaliied + axis.

'Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy.'

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsjointed

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

I don't want to sound like a patriotic redneck, but America isn't as evil as everyone simply makes it out to be.

This has nothing to do with America being more evil than other nations....The manhattan project was a huge money drainer, and America needed to show off their new weapon...Since, that would ensure them a super power status. Britain (or any other industrialized country) would have done the same thing.

True, if American and England didn't have nukes, we'd be speaking Russian right now.

I thinkwe shuld've done a better job at preventing the Russians from obtaining Nuclear technollogy from Germany, we should've sent elite SAS, Delta force, and Scout Sniper agents into Berlin to get rid of these files.

[QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

NicktehImperial

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Great mentality, let´s hope some kid form some other country around the world isn't going to be writing the same thing about the US in the future...

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="mat_the_cat"]no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jewsNicktehImperial

:shock: Ugh, this does not warrant a response.

It's true though....:roll:

I don't want to sound like a patriotic redneck, but America isn't as evil as everyone simply makes it out to be.

This has nothing to do with America being more evil than other nations....The manhattan project was a huge money drainer, and America needed to show off their new weapon...Since, that would ensure them a super power status. Britain (or any other industrialized country) would have done the same thing.

True, if American and England didn't have nukes, we'd be speaking Russian right now.

I thinkwe shuld've done a better job at preventing the Russians from obtaining Nuclear technollogy from Germany, we should've sent elite SAS, Delta force, and Scout Sniper agents into Berlin to get rid of these files.

soviet russia would have discovered a nuclear bomb anyway because the Germans hadn't gotten too far in their quest to build a nuclear bomb

D-Day was necessary not only because the of the need to stop the USSR from taking over, but also because the USSR wanted it the Allies had originally agreed to an earlier D-day, but postponed it because they didn't want to take the heavy casualties, but the SOviets were getting pissed so they had to or the allies could have fallen apart.

As for the Issue of the bomb it was originally developed for use on the NAZI's it just wasn't done in time and they decided to go ahead and use it on the Jappaneese because it was the only way to make them surrender

Isn't it great watching a bunch of people talk about something they know nothing about yet seem so assured that they do?Headbanger88

That's what the OT is all about, mindless and endless.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="dealjobber"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

mat_the_cat

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

More Americans AND Japanese would've died if we hadn't done it.... The Japs were stubborn and wouldn't give up, so, we had to do it.

People die in war.

Other than the "People die in war." you are totally wrong. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the US would accept nothing less than a complete surrender.

The Japanese wouldn't accept Surrender or any "defeatist" talk, until they saw the true destruction we could unleash.

no even if the japanese had tried to surrender, the americans would not let them because they wanted to test the bombs on people. that is not much higher than what hitler did to the jews

Is this a joke. Your comparing Hitler's senseless murder of over 6 million people to hundreds of thousands that died in war. Japan wasn't going to surrender. The only way that America could have defeated the japanese without using the bombs would have been by landing in japan and having another D-day except whith a much much larger loss of life for both sides. trust me we saved people by dropping the bombs.

The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

Wow your reasoning is pathetic...I don't even feel like explaining it to you.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

dealjobber

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

It worked on Japan. (the bombs, obviously)

Omg you idiot they DID BOMB the germans what the hell do you think bunkers are made for...

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]The only reason d-day happened was so the soviets wouldnt conquer europeimsomebody

True, but its not like the US and UK would jus sit back and say "Well, Russsia, just finish the war for us, and take even more gruesome casualties, while we sitback, just because we don't have as many troops."

See how logic works?

No not really, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it.

Yes, and a damn fine job we did too.Bourbons3

Indeed! If you cant beat them with superior weapons just rush the hell outta em! Well, you guys won anyway.

[QUOTE="Veemon_X"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="slicknet"]

So i'm watching band of brother, not a d-day section, but still brutal though. Well i dont know the number of land guys killed at d-day but it would make sense that Britian was pretty safe with the Yanks and Brits there thogether, so couldn't they have just bombed the Germans into defeat from thesea /air and saved the most gruesome battle ever know ?

It just seems as though they couldn't have picked a more difficult way of doing it.

thoughts!

slicknet

Cowardice doesn't win wars.

People call it cowardice, while I call it a method of utilizing weaponry to assist in battle.

Regardless, probably at the time it was necessary.

I agree, theres no doubt there would have been massive fear, but to prove yourselves through sending men into target practice when the UK and America had the planes and ships and guns(or did they?)to flatten the germans into defeat seems unneeded.

They DIDN'T -first of all they couldn't land enough tanks on a sendy beach to make a difference. Second plz just whatch history channel for one day because ti will disprove all your statements. The us and uk bombed the hell out fo the germans but it wasn't enough! Besides you can't take territory with men...