Dear players,
here is a small poll for you. Which of these two generals do you know or even like better?
George S. Patton, US Army general
or
Bernard Montgomery, Field Marshal of the British Army
We would love to hear your opinions and see some discussions here!
Your Call of War Team
Please log in to post a reply.
It is a war. If you kill the most enemy combatants, you've done the most because that means more enemy men in your theater with less men in both the enemy theater as well as the home front.Pablo22510 wrote:
Not necessarily. It just means they killed the most.
With that theory, the German's won because of the Holocaust.Quasi-duck wrote:
It is a war. If you kill the most, you've done the most because that means more men in your theater with less men in both the enemy theater as well as the home front.Pablo22510 wrote:
Not necessarily. It just means they killed the most.
Poor wording on my part, will edit.StrangeTalent wrote:
With that theory, the German's won because of the Holocaust.
Nah, it just means they killed a lot. You have to think of industries, economies, and morale when taking this into account. (Which, in this case, 2/3 still go to Soviets.) But in a modern war, often whoever produces the most does a lot of the heavy mechanical lifting, in WW2 being the United States.Quasi-duck wrote:
Alright, well, that still means the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting of the war.Pablo22510 wrote:
That actually isn't true. It's more like 5/1. Source:
Er, the war ended in Europe when the Soviets arrived in the Nazi capital. How do you think they would've gotten there if they hadn't killed so many Germans? Typical that you would think the US did the most in WWII, even though they didn't even really grapple with the Germans until 1944. Other than that it was just a quick scrap in the meaningless North African campaign (this really did nothing, it should've been an Italian-British war as it was to expand the Italian empire, it had no benefit to Germany, only when they arrived did they find a reason to fight) and fighting in Italy which didn't do much, considering the entire country was German defensive line after German defensive line.purplepizza117 wrote:
Nah, it just means they killed a lot. You have to think of industries, economies, and morale when taking this into account. (Which, in this case, 2/3 still go to Soviets.) But in a modern war, often whoever produces the most does a lot of the heavy mechanical lifting, in WW2 being the United States.
Does A LOT of heavy lifting, not all of it.purplepizza117 wrote:
But in a modern war, often whoever produces the most does a lot of the heavy mechanical lifting, in WW2 being the United States.
You do know that the USSR made most of it's own vehicles? In fact, the only vehicles that the USSR liked were the trucks they got and the M4 Sherman. They only liked the M4 because it had leather seats.purplepizza117 wrote:
Does A LOT of heavy lifting, not all of it.
Yes, they were the only ones they liked, but they used a lot more than that. They used British tanks and planes, and a lot of them, I have to say.
They didn't like British tanks, said they were slow and had weak guns. As for planes, so-so. Haven't heard much about them so they couldn't have been that great.Pablo22510 wrote:
They used British tanks and planes
How many then? As far as I know thye only got a few hundred Matilda II's which were hated and barely used. I think they only gave the Soviets left overs.Pablo22510 wrote:
a lot of them, I have to say.
Quasi-duck wrote:
They didn't like British tanks, said they were slow and had weak guns. As for planes, so-so. Haven't heard much about them so they couldn't have been that great.Pablo22510 wrote:
They used British tanks and planesHow many then? As far as I know thye only got a few hundred Matilda II's which were hated and barely used. I think they only gave the Soviets left overs.Pablo22510 wrote:
a lot of them, I have to say.
Yeah, drove 'em far enough to dump 'em in a ditch and burn them out, then come back and say they were ambushedPablo22510 wrote:
Still used them, though.
Can't have been that useful. We have heard of them being sent American planes which were used to great effect, trucks too. Though any British gear sent over does not seem to have earned itself a footnote in history through a trial of fire.Pablo22510 wrote:
But they received a lot of Spitfires and Hurricanes.
According to what I reead, the Matildas were used a lot, and shipment of them kept on going until the success of Bagration. And according to what I read, so were the planes.Quasi-duck wrote:
Yeah, drove 'em far enough to dump 'em in a ditch and burn them out, then come back and say they were ambushedPablo22510 wrote:
Still used them, though.Can't have been that useful. We have heard of them being sent American planes which were used to great effect, trucks too. Though any British gear sent over does not seem to have earned itself a footnote in history through a trial of fire.Pablo22510 wrote:
But they received a lot of Spitfires and Hurricanes.
No, the Matilda's were hated. They only came when their 40mm gun was obsolete, which is why the Soviets didn't lke them, on top of them being slow.Pablo22510 wrote:
According to what I reead, the Matildas were used a lot, and shipment of them kept on going until the success of Bagration.
I have never heard anything of the planes.Pablo22510 wrote:
And according to what I read, so were the planes.
Nevertheless, they were used, both the tanks and the planes.Quasi-duck wrote:
No, the Matilda's were hated. They only came when their 40mm gun was obsolete, which is why the Soviets didn't lke them, on top of them being slow.Pablo22510 wrote:
According to what I reead, the Matildas were used a lot, and shipment of them kept on going until the success of Bagration.I have never heard anything of the planes.Pablo22510 wrote:
And according to what I read, so were the planes.
Beside the point, but this quote in your sig: God is on the side of the big batallions" - isn't this just a rip-off of Napoleons artillery quote?Pablo22510 wrote:
Nevertheless, they were used, both the tanks and the planes.
Nah, I think Forsyth wrote it without knowing about Napoleon's quote. Nevertheless, I found the quote cool. Have you read Forsyth?Quasi-duck wrote:
Beside the point, but this quote in your sig: God is on the side of the big batallions" - isn't this just a rip-off of Napoleons artillery quote?Pablo22510 wrote:
Nevertheless, they were used, both the tanks and the planes.
Alright, it is just because it seems like he switched "biggest artillery" with "big battalions".Pablo22510 wrote:
Nah, I think Forsyth wrote it without knowing about Napoleon's quote. Nevertheless, I found the quote cool.
Nope, never even heard of him.Pablo22510 wrote:
Have you read Forsyth?
Yeah, sounds suspiciously similar.Quasi-duck wrote:
Alright, it is just because it seems like he switched "biggest artillery" with "big battalions".Pablo22510 wrote:
Nah, I think Forsyth wrote it without knowing about Napoleon's quote. Nevertheless, I found the quote cool.Nope, never even heard of him.Pablo22510 wrote:
Have you read Forsyth?
Dude, he's considered the greatest thriller genre author.
What about that one guy, Stephen something, possibly King?Pablo22510 wrote:
Dude, he's considered the greatest thriller genre author.
That's terror.Quasi-duck wrote:
What about that one guy, Stephen something, possibly King?Pablo22510 wrote:
Dude, he's considered the greatest thriller genre author.
Please log in to post a reply.
