Russia Declares War on Ukraine<<MOD WARNING>>

Im neutral btw but it's very interesting that you don't want respect from your supposed opposition, kind of self defeating logic. You're clearly not a war strategian.

 

But go ahead with your support of Ukraine terrorists, it's nothing new for pro western hypocrites given its widespread arming of Isis.

 

Things fall apart.

Exports to Russia from China plummet, study shows
Global exports to Russia fell sharply after the Ukraine invasion, not only from Western countries that enacted sanctions but also from non-sanctioning countries including China, a new analysis shows.

The study suggests Moscow is struggling to find suppliers for a range of goods.

Over roughly two months after the invasion began Feb. 24, exports to Russia from sanctioning countries fell by about 60 percent while exports from non-sanctioning countries fell by about 40 percent, according to the study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which analyzed data from 54 countries.

The available data ends on April 30, so the analysis doesn’t give a picture up to the current day, Martin Chorzempa, senior fellow and author of the study, said in an interview. But a separate analysis of China-only data through the end of May shows that China’s exports to Russia remained well below prewar levels, suggesting that Beijing is wary of helping Moscow, Chorzempa said. . . .

 

Winston Churchill would absolutely oppose the Ruscist invasion of Ukraine and support Ukraine in this war.

 

Top Air National Guard Colonel: Ukrainian pilots '100%' capable of flying fourth-generation warplanes
Caitlin McFall
Mon, June 27, 2022 at 6:48 AM

A top official in the California Air National Guard is setting the record straight when it comes to the ability of Ukrainian fighter pilots defying expectations in the sky against Russian sorties, telling Fox News they are "100 percent" capable of flying fourth-generation warplanes.

"The Ukraine air force has the pilot corps to fly these types of advanced aircraft," Col. Rob Swertfager said. "The Ukrainian pilots are fantastic. I've flown with every air force in Europe – especially their regional partners."

"The Ukrainians are so undervalued and under-appreciated. Which is exactly why I think they're winning the war because everybody underestimated that they were way better than anybody gave them credit for," he added.

... https://news.yahoo.com/top-air-national-guard-colonel-114805927.html​

Yo Joe! Let's get these guys some real aircraft already!

 

None of the above is relevant. To address your main points The facts, and they are historically recorded facts are as follows:

1) The only key bottleneck for the RAF was pilots. Aircraft production actually went up during the Blitz (fact). Some factories were damaged but because manufacturing and assembly had been decentralized it is a myth Germany was able to significantly impact fighter production. Same as fighter production in Germany wasn't knocked out by the Allied Air campaign and Germany was able to maintain high levels of production until late in the war (also fact).

2) The only Ports within range of German fighter escorts were those on the South East Coast of England of which only the Port of London was really important . All other major British Ports were well out of escort range and again even at the height of the Battle of Britain (BoB) the Port of London while heavily damaged was never completely knocked out. This is one of the key points of the Battle of Britain. The range of the fighters used as escorts. The ME-109E (the main German fighter in use at the time) only had a combat radius of about 125 miles! Operating from forward air bases in the Calais region it just had enough fuel to let it fly bomber escort missions as far as London. That's it. Any combat mission flown by Luftwaffe bombers beyond London and the south east coast had to go in unescorted by single engine fighters and suffer heavy casualties as a result. (Which is why attacks on ports like Liverpool and even Belfast soon switched to night bombing raids. The losses were too severe otherwise.)

3) 'Following several weeks of raids that focused on British ports and shipping, the Germans moved inland, turning their attention to airfields and other RAF targets.' They tried and failed. Some more fun facts.

- the vast bulk of airfields were hard to knock out and easy to replace. It took hundreds of tons of bombs to put an airfield out of operation. Any flat field more than 700 meters or so long could quickly be converted into an fighter airfield at the time. And almost all structures on an airfield were readily replaceable in the short term with tents if necessary. During the height of the BoB no British airfield was knocked out of action for more than a few hours or so and relatively few aircraft were destroyed on the ground. (And the same problem confronted Britain when attacking makeshift German airfields in France. It took years of combat experience for tactical air forces to get good at low level strikes on airfield - by 1944 the Allies had begun to master the art but they were and remained very hard targets to knock out permanently.)

- Low level attacks were much more effective than high altitude bombing and did more damage. But low altitude attacks also meant heavier casualties (bomber losses) for the attackers.

- Faulty German intelligence. The British worked very hard at denying Germany accurate intelligence over South West England. The only German aircraft flights the RAF were guaranteed to always try to intercept were reconnaissance flights. This was a deliberate policy. At the height of the blitz certain incoming bomber attacks would be ignored in favor of concentrating all available fighters on others. Recon flights were never ignored. The result was that aerial photographic missions had to be conducted at high altitude which seriously degraded their utility. It is fact that many of the raids conducted by Germany on airbases with the intention of knocking out fighter command ended up striking bases that weren't being used by fighter command (the Germans intelligence simply thought they were). In addition the Germans continuously overestimated both the impact their raids were having on British fighter production and the numbers of fighters destroyed on the ground or in aerial combat. (Both sides tended to do this last bit.)

- Lastly in the event the attacks damage to RAF fighter command bases ever became so intense they had to be abandoned the British had the option of moving to other bases or even withdrawing fighters to airfields west and north of London (out of ME 109 range) while still being in position to cover the South West Coast of the UK from attack. This never happened. Germany never succeeded even temporarily in forcing toe RAF out of the South West.

Conclusion? Every analysis I have ever read indicates it was impossible for the Luftwaffe to win the air war over the UK without destroying itself in the process and rendering it unable to support an invasion. Your invasion is a work of fantasy. In order to have even a remote chance of succeeding the Luftwaffe has do all of the following at once;

- protect the embarkation ports in France from air attack;
- protect the ships and barges crossing the channel from air attack;
- protect the landing zones from attack;
- provide ground attack support for the invasion forces;
- British naval forces in the channel
- attack & suppress key targets behind enemy lines.

And that's all after they've finished neutralizing the RAF! And they have to do all of the above at the same time, for days on end. With a maximum of about 2500 aircraft of all types.

And in preparation for the Normandy invasion? The Allies assembled a force of more than 13,000 aircraft, while still performing other missions with other planes. And that's after after spending the best part of year attacking the Luftwaffe bases in France by way of preparation.

 

No he did not, he knew and had seen it. I have to trust him that he and his unites never participated and historical record show it.
Did the German Army commit atrocities, by all means. War is not a football game. Its brutal murder and revenge murder.

The war in the East has to be divided into two wars. Before 1943 it was a duty to serve, that's what they did.
The country called you, you lined up.
A duty and nobody questioned it.
When the tide turned, it became rather personal for guys like my father. Because now it became about their home, their country, their families

 

Yes, Russia is facing two wars - one in Ukraine and the other with its economy.

 

No ****. The West (mainly the US) armed, funded and supported ISIS and then they did the same with the Ukraine Nazis and people are all "rah rah rah" for the Nazis. That says a lot for the Western education system.

 

I'm sure ISIS would be surprised to hear that.

 

They also support Hitler and Tojo as well, not forgetting Uncle Joe Stalin.
Terrible really.

 

Inside the secret training bases for foreign soldiers fighting for Ukraine - BBC News


So many brave young men standing up against a dictator to defend a beautiful country.

 

NATO to boost rapid reaction force, Ukraine military support

BRUSSELS -- NATO allies will decide at a summit this week to increase the strength of their rapid reaction force nearly eightfold to 300,000 troops as part of their response to an “era of strategic competition," the military alliance's secretary-general said Monday.

The NATO response force (NRF) currently numbers around 40,000 soldiers which can deploy quickly when needed.

...​

A prudent move, of course, but this later paragraph is the part I really find exciting:

Over the long term, Stoltenberg said allies aim to help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era armaments to modern NATO equipment. The world's seven leading economic powers underscored Monday their commitment to Ukraine for “as long as it takes.”

... https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ction-force-ukraine-military-support-85781786​

Wooo-HOOO!!! Send in the Patriots, the Hornets and Eagles, the Abrams and so much more! Let's get this done, boys!

 

Ruzzia is the worse ISIS these days.

Btw: nice American rocket launcher makes the Pooteen cry:

 

Australia chipping in...

 

.....and after all that the Germans still have to get past literally hundreds of British ships of various sizes. Some of the invasion convoys were expected to take days to get to Britain. Many such convoys involved towing river barges tied in threes behind tugs and ferries. These boats were so unstable in rough conditions it is possible the wake of a passing destroyer (of which he RN had over 100 within a few hours of the invasion beaches) could sink them.

The more you get into the detail of German plans the clearer it is how absurdly unrealistic they were even when Britain was at its weakest. That 1970s wargame that Germany comprehensively lost was deliberately stacked in Germany's favour so it wouldn't end in the first few hours. It was assumed the entire first wave would get ashore unmolested. There is no universe in which this happens. There would have been RN commanders literally ramming German ships if necessary. It would have been a slaughter before the first landing craft hit a beach. I wish Germany had attempted it. The loss of 30,000-60,000 of its best troops, large amounts of aircraft & basically the entire surface fleet & a good many subs would have made a dent in plans for the Balkans & nth Africa at a minimum.

With al lthe information now available only the ill informed or delusional could still believe Sealion was possible.

 

and America is literally Satan, what's your point?

 

Back to the original topic. If the Germans dedicated all their manpower and resources to defeat Britain (never starting a war against the Soviet Union), what would the outcome be?

 

Yep, already I did a rough comparison of surface forces in a previous post e.g. the British with aprox 170 destroyers, the Germans with 10. Obviously a large portion of these ships would be required elsewhere but Britain's channel fleet in Sept 40 had more light cruisers and destroyers in it than Germany had in total! And that's not counting hundreds of MTBS - all to deal with an invasion force most of which crossing the channel being towed in unarmed barges! And Germany's capital ships would have sally out of the Baltic and across the North Sea to get to the Channel - past the British Battleships and their supporting heavy cruisers. Which is also why I kept harping on about all the 'heavy lifting' the Luftwaffe to do in the absence of any significant naval forces.

 

I've already answered this. Germany couldn't invade Britain in 1940 (or 41 or 42) He'd only just conquered Europe and his economy wasn't even on a war footing yet (true fact). It would take him years to organize, prepare & build up the naval and air forces needed to the point where an invasion was not only practicable but relatively certain of success. For a start he would have to consolidate the industrial capacity of all the conquered nations into Germany's

Remember it took the combined industrial output of both Britain and the US two and half years before they felt confident enough to launch a seaborne invasion going in the other direction and combined they had something like 3-4 Germany's industrial output at least. Hitler didn't have years. American was entering the war in December 1941.

He also never really wanted a war with Britain to start with (part of the Aryan brotherhood and all that). Even after the fall of France and on into early 41 he was still hoping terms could be reached. From the very beginning the 'enemy' was always Communism and Russia. He was bent on destroying both and occupying as much of the latter as he could in the process. In his 'perfect' world Britain kept its Empire and Germany ruled the continent. His comments to this effect are matter of record.

 

I don't have the figures on me, but I think something like 85 destroyers were in or near tha channel & more were not far away. With invasion threatened Britain wasn't mucking about. Also remember that in addition to MTBs Britain had many hundreds of smaller naval vessels. There were corvettes, minesweepers, sloops & armed trawlers a bunch of other ships converted for war use. While many of them weren't heavily armed or armoured they were enough to cause a problem, especially in combination with the destroyers & light cruisers that would likely have engaged directly.

The ignorant also ignore the impact of British air & naval power BEFORE the invasion. The RAF regularly bombed the channel ports during what would have been the lead up to Sealion. While this was no more effective than most night time bombing at the time, it caused some disruption to the gathering of marine craft for the invasion. More deadly were the regular RN night attacks. With next to no naval presence Germany was helpless to stop the RN shelling ports. This caused significant disruption to preparations. It would have been even more disruptive had men & supplies been gathered. It is not impossible that the RN could have significantly degraded some of those flotillas before they even left port.

Again, the more detail you get into the more impossible the invasion clearly was.

 

The outcome would have been an even longer alliance between Russia & the Nazis while Britain fought on with US backing. Germany wasn't going to be crossing the channel anytime soon, and its very possible the US would have interevened even more directly after Pearl Harbour if that hat seemed likely.

Until you have some grasp of the imbalance between naval forces involved & the difficulty of a large seaborne invasion you just aren't going to get it.

 

Don't forget Al Quaeda....

 

https://twitter.com/WarAgainstPutin/status/1541483691376930816