USMC vs ...

[MiccyNarc]

And another major reason was the failire of germany to design and produce a tank that was effective and could be built in great quantity like the T-34 or the Sherman.

Wait..what? The Germans depended on the Panzers, it was their strong point. The Sherman tank was a death trap, not effective. The T-34 was built in humongous quantity. The problem with fighting russia was that every time a tank was destroyed or a man was killed, there was always one or 50 to take his place.

 

[Foxtrot]

Wait..what? The Germans depended on the Panzers, it was their strong point. The Sherman tank was a death trap, not effective. The T-34 was built in humongous quantity. The problem with fighting russia was that every time a tank was destroyed or a man was killed, there was always one or 50 to take his place.

He is saying that is what the problem was, Germany didn't mass produce any of their tanks.

 

[swiss]

oooh...be careful...it wasnt just stalingrad. The way the allies won the war was making a war on two fronts...so leningrad was a major battle (more so than stalingrad) on one front. What about Rommels defeat in Egypt? The western front was extremely important and the US and Britain won just as important battles in Egypt on the western front. So hardy har har
.

What the hell are you talking about?
Do any of you actually know the figures?

In WW2 the Soviet Union lost at LEAST 20 million men, and estimates point more likely to 25-30 million men.
Whilst the combined losses of USA and GB were no more than 1 million at the most.
After Stalingrad the Russians were already on the way to defeating Germany, and that was in 1943; before D-Day in '44.
Basically the Soviet Union would have single-handedly defeated Hitler.
The wars in Africa and Italy were only side-shows to the real war in Europe that was on the eastern front.

 

[ricera10]

This thread should be stickied as a World War II history discussion where everything with a atom of truth goes.

BTW, this thread is totally off-topic right now...

 

[Foxtrot]

What the hell are you talking about?
Do any of you actually know the figures?

In WW2 the Soviet Union lost at LEAST 20 million men, and estimates point more likely to 25-30 million men.
Whilst the combined losses of USA and GB were no more than 1 million at the most.
After Stalingrad the Russians were already on the way to defeating Germany, and that was in 1943; before D-Day in '44.
Basically the Soviet Union would have single-handedly defeated Hitler.
The wars in Africa and Italy were only side-shows to the real war in Europe that was on the eastern front.

Because obviously the amount of deaths reflects how much they affected the war.

 

[swiss]

The huge casualties reflect the actual scale of the fighting in the east , the Germans lost most of their men against Russia too, which shows how much of Germanys fighting force was used solely against Russia. At the battle of Kursk there were around 1000 tanks involved in just the one battle. America and Britain simply never fought in battles that huge.
D-Day may have been the largest seaborne invasion, but they didnt face huge opposition because so much of Germanys resources were used up in the east, and because the Allied intelligence convinced the Germans to think that the attack would be by Calais not Normandy.

 

[Kebean PFC]

All of the battles combined to put Germany down. Had Russia just fought Germany by itself (without any outside influence), she would have lost. A modern, well equipped Army vs the rabble that Russia had at the start would have rolled right on through. The T-34 (not the whole design but a major part) came from America, where it was rejected in favor of the Sherman, would not have been able to turn the tide, there would only have been a few of them at most.

Lets put down all our nationalistic bullcrap and realize that World War Two was one by all of the Allied Nations in the World, not just America or Russia or Great Britain. Even in the Pacific, their were a few British carriers. The Russians were mobilizing for war with Japan too, had the A-Bomb not been dropped, it would have been ALLIED troops storming the beaches of Japan. When i say Allied, i mean everyone, from Mexico to the US, all would have been fighting together, for a common goal.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Lets put down all our nationalistic bullcrap and realize that World War Two was one by all of the Allied Nations in the World, not just America or Russia or Great Britain. Even in the Pacific, their were a few British carriers. The Russians were mobilizing for war with Japan too, had the A-Bomb not been dropped, it would have been ALLIED troops storming the beaches of Japan. When i say Allied, i mean everyone, from Mexico to the US, all would have been fighting together, for a common goal.

he speaks the truth. WWII was won through the combined might of all the allied nations. Example: The Far East/Pacific although the Americans were the major contributos to this theatre their victory would have taken much longer and cost many more allied lives without the ANZACs in the Pacific, the British and Commonwealth troops in India and Burma, the resistance by the Chinese, etc.

Also, the Europein theatre: The victory of the RAF in the battle of Britan denied the Germans the ability to invade britan, forceing them to station troops behind to prevent a british counter attack accross the channel, send troops to north africa to reinforce the Itallians against the British and commonwealth troops stationed there, all of which denied crusial men and material from the russian frount. if that had been involved in barbarossa Moscow could have fallen.

But if the Germans had not invaded Russia an allied invasion of western europe would have been impossible. if Russia had fallen then the war would have almost cirtainly been lost for the allies. with the oil and production power of Russia to assist them the Germans could have oblitorated the western allies.

Also if the allies hadnt launced their bomber offensive Germany would have retained an even greater production capacity and may have been able to produce enough tanks and aircraft to maintain the war for much longer.

Without the Massive production power of the USA the War in the Pacific and Western Europe would almost cirtainly have been lost due to Britan's lack of capability to produce armaments and supplies. Russia may have survived but even they used American and British made equipment.

In my opinion the main factor for victory by the allies was their raw ability to produce so much war matieral. with the might of primarily Russian and American industry behind them and the effective but cheap, easy and quick to produce equipment they employed it is obvios, in hind sight, that quantity over quality would win the war it didnt matter that the kill ratio of Tiger tanks to Shermans was somthing like 5 shermans to 1 tiger because the allies could build more shermans, faster and at much less expence than the Germans could build tigers. The one tank that might have been able to save the reich was the panther, originally intended to be a slightly improved and 'Germanised' versoin of the T-34 but they made it too good. it took too long and was too expencive to produce it in sufficant quantity to match the Russian and Western Allied tanks. It didnt matter that one on one the panther could come out on top every time because they never engaged one on one. They tried so hard to make it the perfect tank that they made it too perfect.

The same was true of the Far Eastern and Pacific theatres, the Japanese knew they couldnt match the industrail might of the US, so they didn't try. Ther plan was to use their raid at Perl Harbor to cripple the US and take over the Pacific while they recovered so their lack of industrail capability wouldnt matter as their war with the US would be over before it could begin.

Although that the invasion of Japan would have been a truly Allied operation the point of dropping the A bomb was to keep the Soviets out of the Pacific war and to aviod the 1 million + allied casualties that were expected from an invasion of mainland Japan.

When you look at it, WWII was never a fair fight. The allies seemed to hold all the aces. The Soveit Union was just huge and had a massive population, manufacturing ability and an incredible defence in depth, The US had probubly the strongest economy and production facilitys in the world and would have been almost impossible to invade the British Empire/Common wealth Still pretty much owned 1/3 of the world. Where as the Germans had only their own, comparitivly small production facilitys, Austria and Checeslovacia and the support of Italy when they entered the war and The Japanese had only their home islands and parts of China.

Bassicly no one nation or action won the war alone. if Britan had fallen a liberation of europe from the west would have been impossible. If The Sovets had lost, Europe would have been impossible to liberate from the Germans. If the ANZAC,British, Duch and other troops in the Pacific before the main American presence made its self felt the pacific Island hopping campagin would have been much more difficult. If the common wealth troops and chinese in the far east had failed the war would have ground on much longer as the allies would have had to rute the Japanese out of much more of mainland Asia.

The reason they were the Allies was because the faught toghter with their combined might to free the world of fachist agression and we owe our freedom to every man woman and child who made a contribution to help in creating the final victories over Germany and Japan.

Any way we really need to get back on topic before one of my brain hemesphres explodes.

 

[MilkMan12]

What the hell are you talking about?
Do any of you actually know the figures?

In WW2 the Soviet Union lost at LEAST 20 million men, and estimates point more likely to 25-30 million men.
Whilst the combined losses of USA and GB were no more than 1 million at the most.
After Stalingrad the Russians were already on the way to defeating Germany, and that was in 1943; before D-Day in '44.
Basically the Soviet Union would have single-handedly defeated Hitler.
The wars in Africa and Italy were only side-shows to the real war in Europe that was on the eastern front.

Oh the amount of deaths the Soviet Union lost in WW2 has nothing to do with it. The only reason why Russia didnt lose was because of their large country and mass amounts of pawns (people) to throw out and die...they were like the China of the 21st century man.

They lost 6 million in WW1 and had basically no effect on the war. Its a bunch of bullshit..***ssia sucked at fighting wars, had no willpower within the people, no technology, no food, but a whole shit load of people ready to die.

You ever see that sniper movie where like every other guy gets a gun? Thats why they had so many losses...cause they just had more people with no reason to fight. The Allies other than Russia had technology, food, and troops willing to fight during WW2 and together had more of an effect than Russia did. Germany could have taken over Russia had they not understimated the amount of resources it would take to keep capturing cities accross the landscape and had they not been fighting a two front war. Germany mainly focused on the Western front for a reason by the way.

Also I just wanted to add that without the RAF stopping the Germans from taking Britain, Germany probably would have had a major advantage over the allies and we probably would have lost or take 10 times longer to win. Im American by the way so Im not a British guy trying to say his country is important...so thats an unbiased statement.

 

[bam23]

This game has no story, and that basically means no alliances, why does it hurt so much to have a few MEC vs China maps?

Why are some of you guys so against this idea? I don't get it.

 

[MilkMan12]

I personally dont care...Im arguing with the other topic within this topic lol. But realize that it was a marketing decision/tactic but maybe in a patch it will come out.

 

[CyberPitz]

I think I just learned more about WWII here then I did in my entire school carreer. Holy ****.

PS I dont really care, teams are teams...I like the US guys because I can understand their jibberish, when IM chinese or something, I gotta read..reading sucks

 

[Dalamari]

Chinesse have the coolest guns, MEC have cool uniforms, and America has cool vehicles

 

[Bob_Marley]

Yay! We're back on topic! I think that having China vs MEC makes perfect sence. I always thought the game was about the slowly crumbleing might of the US being tested by two new super powers and them vying for the top position. Also the middle east and china are much geographicly closer so it makes sence for them to come into conflict.

 

[15357]

Also china is closer to the middle east than america

 

[Gray Fox]

Is there an option to make the chinese and mec speak english, cause the way it is now is great for authenticitie and great for chinese and arabic people, but it's just annoying for me.

 

[15357]

Is there an option to make the chinese and mec speak english, cause the way it is now is great for authenticitie and great for chinese and arabic people, but it's just annoying for me.

yeah, me too. I can only understand a few words like medic or move in chinese.

i want the voices in C&C generals.

 

[The Monkey]

Is there an option to make the chinese and mec speak english, cause the way it is now is great for authenticitie and great for chinese and arabic people, but it's just annoying for me.

Agreed. If you play as USMC you don't have to look to the left of the screen every time someone says something. WHen playing China or MEC, you have to

 

[lemonfridge]

This game has no story, and that basically means no alliances, why does it hurt so much to have a few MEC vs China maps?

Why are some of you guys so against this idea? I don't get it.

bam23, your seeing my point exactly.

 

[ray_MAN]

yeah, me too. I can only understand a few words like medic or move in chinese.

i want the voices in C&C generals.

I think so. Try going to audio in options and looking there.

 

[Pesmerga]

I think I just learned more about WWII here then I did in my entire school carreer. Holy ****.

PS I dont really care, teams are teams...I like the US guys because I can understand their jibberish, when IM chinese or something, I gotta read..reading sucks

Just watch the History Channel every day for about 3 hours and you'll Ace every highschool history class.

 

[B_MAN]

Because it has to be US-centric to pander to it's US core audience.

indeed
the trick to enjoying BF2 is to ignore its political implications
its US vs THEWORLD remember? :rolling:

 

[CyberPitz]

Just watch the History Channel every day for about 3 hours and you'll Ace every highschool history class.

Heh, I'll watch THC for about 2 years, then finally go to college..*5 years outta school aint bad right?* and be the best damn history teacher there ever was!

ITS GENIOUS! MUWAHAHAHA

*well..maybe I can think of what to go to college for REAL D:*