NYJetsFan.com Forums: Most Important Battle Of Wwii - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 09:52 AM) He is a good QB and I would love to have him. However IMO our 6 is not good value for us. Not to mention if he hates the idea of LA what is he going to think of NY? Contract situation would have to be worked out prior to trade as well. Extreme long shot to land Rivers. My money says we are more likely to land Brees.
azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 09:53 AM) which is still a very long shot
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:46 AM) he may just hate ownership. LT's comments yesterday was interesting.
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:47 AM) “I personally don’t think so,” Tomlinson said. “I really think this is a situation where Philip Rivers wants to move on. The reason why I think that and the reason why I feel like that is the Chargers have already approached Philip about doing another contract and he declined it. He doesn’t want anything to do with it; he didn’t even want to talk about another contract with the San Diego Chargers. That tells me that he’s thinking about moving on.”

“You never want to trade your franchise quarterback,” Tomlinson said, “that’s never the case. However, in this situation they might have no choice but to do so because I don’t know if Philip [Rivers] wants to be there anymore. I think he’s lost confidence in the organization. He’s seeing a lot of changes going on and the L.A. thing is valid; him not wanting to go to L.A., that is very valid, I can see that. So no, it doesn’t make sense to move on from Philip because he’s a franchise quarterback and he still has three to four very good years left.”
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:47 AM) missed the LA line. nvm. guess that is a legit concern.
Mr_Jet Icon : (21 April 2015 - 03:57 PM) He doesn't want to play for a franchise based in Los Angeles, but he'd be okay with playing for one based in New York City?
azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 04:28 PM) That's the point we have all been making.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:05 PM) Jets vs colts Monday night week2
MikeGangGree... Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:09 PM) Jets open at home against the browns
ganggreen2003 Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:52 PM) Week 5 Bye after the London Game against the Dolphags
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 09:17 AM) Rivers is likely going to Tennessee. Would LOVE to have him here but we likely won't make the trade. I'd easily give this year and next year
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 09:17 AM) 's first rounder for him
azjetfan Icon : (22 April 2015 - 11:03 AM) IMO that's a steep price. I would swap this years first and a conditional 1st next year. Assuming we make the AFC Championship. That would be a 28-32nd pick. Otherwise a second.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 01:07 PM) Yes 2 1st is a lot
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 01:10 PM) draft is next week, pumped
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:02 PM) What are thoughts on getting a RB in round 1? McShay's newest mock has us taking Gurley at 6. I don't think we should take him that high, but if we trade down and he's available I'd love to snag him, ACL and all. He's got an unreal skill set that, once healthy, will translate readily to the NFL. We're not getting a QB this year without paying a king's ransom, and unless we pay a ransom for a top guy I say ignore QB. I don't want us to take a Hundley or Petty type in the 2nd or 3rd round when we need other pieces (edge rush, OL)
azjetfan Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:09 PM) We can probably get Gordon in the second. I would pass at 6. If QB is not available a pass rusher will be. Our biggest needs are QB Pass rusher and Oline.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:34 PM) any thourghts on shane ray? i see a lot of mocks have us drafting him
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:35 PM) last one i seen had us taking cooper, a RB, and hundley for our 1st 3 picks. not thrilled about that
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:38 PM) I don't like Gordon much. Not much of a receiver or blocker, ball security issues, tries to bounce outside too much, stuffed frequently. Gurley is in a league of his own
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:39 PM) Ray is pretty highly regarded. I'm betting he, Dupree, and Gregory will be our best options as well as edge rushers at 6, but I think that's too high for any of them
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:43 PM) Personally love Cooper, I know WR isn't our biggest need but he may be the most NFL ready guy in the Draft. If we stick to the 6th pick and Fowler, Beasley, and Mariota are gone, Cooper is the guy to get. I'd even take him over Beasley
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) i don't mind cooper. decker isn't number 1 IMO and marshall is expensive and getting old
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) and we never draft a WR high
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) but o-line and QB are huge needs. i wouldn't take o-line 6th overall, but i think our 2nd or 3rd should be o-line
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:46 PM) we need an OLB as well. if we don't land a QB i'd like to see OLB adn O-line with 2 of our top 3 picks
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:16 PM) I agree on Deck, not a true #1 and he's had a checkered history with injuries. Marshall has 2, maybe 3 productive years left, which is why Cooper is an option
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:17 PM) And I agree with you on edge rusher & OL being bigger needs, but there really isn't a lineman I'd take at 6
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:19 PM) So the way I see it, assuming Winston and Mariota are taken when we're at 6, that Fowler and Cooper are our best choices, and I'd be stunned if Fowler drops. I wouldn't be surprised (or upset) if we land Cooper
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:47 PM) Apparently Tennessee wanted both of Cleveland's #1's and their 2nd rounder to move up to the #2 spot to get Mariota. Still think two 1st rounders are too much for Rivers? He makes us instant contenders and if we make a deep playoff run, it would really be this year's 1st and what equates to basically a 2nd rounder next year.
If not, get Cooper in the 1st and then grab Hundley in the 2nd and O-line in the 3rd.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:05 PM) I wouldn't be upset with Cooper, hes a stud
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:06 PM) Not sure about Ray. Dupree is rising on the draft boards, ridiculously athletic for his size
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:07 PM) Dupree is 6'4 270 and has a amazing get off and runs a 4.5
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:09 PM) Problem is he doesn't have big sack numbers in college, I rather draft a productive guy high
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:09 PM) Vic Beasley is insanely athletic as well and was hugely productive in college, good bet is that Beasley will be a 10+ sack guy in the NFL
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:12 PM) Beasley should be a stud but he gets caught up hand fighting if he doesn't beat his guy quickly. He'll likely end up as an OLB but we'll see
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:15 PM) He'd be a good fit in our defense, because we could use that speed guy on the outside
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:27 AM) I'd love Rivers, but we should be able to get him without paying 2 first rounders
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:29 AM) Lot of buzz about Dupree going top 10, most mocks I see have us getting either Ray or Dupree at 6. I prefer Dupree, like you said insane athlete for his size
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:30 AM) I like Beasley as well but I have a strong feeling Washington will snag him. But he is a small dude, it'd be nice if he'd add some bulk (in Clemson reportedly played around 230)
Chaos Icon : (23 April 2015 - 10:11 AM) @ArifHasanNFL

.@LanceZierlein says on http://sports790.com that Shane Ray will need surgery on foot, 5 months recovery. "Could drop out of first"
Chaos Icon : (23 April 2015 - 10:14 AM) this should change up the top 10
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 12:16 PM) Damn that's big. If he drops out of round 1 that could be a massive bargain for whoever gets him round 2. Dupree now looks more like the edge rusher we'd get at 6
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 09:40 PM) TEH RANGERS
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 11:32 PM) TEH WIZ
Resize Shouts Area

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Most Important Battle Of Wwii

Poll: Most Important Battle of WWII (9 member(s) have cast votes)

Most Important Battle of WWII

  1. Battle of Midway (1 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  2. Operation Overlord (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  3. Battle of Guadacanal (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Battle of Iwo Jima (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  5. Battle of Okinawa (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. The North African Campaign (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Operation Barbossa (Invasion of Russia by Germany) (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  8. Battle of Britain (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  9. Fall of France (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  10. Invasion of Italy (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  11. The Evacuation of Dunkrick (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 11 May 2005 - 08:36 PM

The Battle of Midway. If we lost all of our oil supplies for ships in the Pacific would be lost, Japan could use that oild to make another Pearl Harbour bombing, invade Hawaii easily, then start hitting the United States, especially along California, where there were many factories producing war materials. Germany lost because we did that to them. But thankfully our 30-40 ship fleet beat Japan's 1990-200 ship fleet there by sinking the carriers Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, and Akagi with the Hornet, Enterprise, and Yorktown. They lost many veteran flyers, while opurs got better. We repulsed what was a huge sneek attack, but thankfully Joeseph J. Rochefort decoded the message. What are your opinions?
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#2 User is offline   ellisjersey92 Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,168
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Jersey

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 11 May 2005 - 09:59 PM

i dont know much about WWII and the battles, but id say the invasion of normandy. it is the most famous for a reason and the most massive invasion in history has to be the most important battle

0

#3 User is offline   Matador Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Miami, Florida

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 11 May 2005 - 11:22 PM

I would have to say the battle of Kursk 1943.

Germany gambled to regain strategic superiority on the eastern front after Stalingrad.

The largest tank battle in history. Germany threw in its strategic armored reserve despite knowing that the Soviets had positioned 10 X as many soldiers and tanks than the Germans and had advanced warning and the objectives of the German attack.

The German failure meant Germany could not defeat the Soviets, and could only hope for a stalemate against the overpowering Soviet juggernaut. It meant that the Allied forces would succeed in opening the Western front as Germany would not be able to concentrate its forces in Western Europe to stem the Allied attack.

My second choice, Operation Bagration, or the destruction of German Army Group Center, 1944.

The German battle plan for the German invasion had its basic framework in three Army Groups with basic geographical objectives: North (objective Leningrad), Center (Moscow) and South (objective Stalingrad)

By 1944, the Germans were on the defensive. The destruction of Army Group Center left a gap between Army Grps North and South, and forced the retreat of German forces into Eastern Europe. German hopes for a strategic stalemate with the Soviets were dashed. Germany was guaranteed a 2 front war, and recognized the opportunity for any victory was irrevocably lost.

The destruction of Army Group Center facilitated the entry of the Soviet Army into eastern europe, establishing de facto dominance over eastern Europe for the next 50 years.
QUOTE
The root dilemma of our time is that if the quest for peace turns into the sole objective of policy, the fear of war becomes a weapon in the hands of the most ruthless; it produces moral disarmament"

                                    -Henry Kissinger; White House Years
0

#4 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 02:55 AM

Stalingrad had to be the most important battle. This where Hitler crumbled. Had Stalin not purged the oficer corp of the red army, this battle could of ended sooner. 7out of 10 germans who died in WWII were killed by Russians. Mostly around the pocket of Stalingrad. The Germans were doomed soons as the Russian figure out thier tactics. Russia is a huge country. Too hard to hold. The Russian fought for space. They retreated inland. Meaning the Germans supply line was stretched. The huge numbers of Russians soldiers captured early in the war was no more. Supplies had to come a long way. The Germans depand a lot on thier allie the Romanians. They're are not as well trained as the Germans and got beat quickly. Hitler took command of the war in Russia which caused a quick end. He only answered to himself and made poor descisions. Paulus had no choice but to surrender making him the first ever German field Marshall to be captured.

Hey CFP08----I see you man. You and I are war history buffs. I noticed that on one of your first posts. I study tactics and history of wars since I was about 10 years old. We can talk.
0

#5 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 04:53 AM

You should remove Dunkirk off that poll. It was an important battle only because the British got lucky and survive. This was the Germans had a chance to knock England out of the War. Instead of using infantry and armor. Goering went with the air force. A dumb mistake but Good for England.
0

#6 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 06:15 AM

I know about Dunkrick, but how many British and French survivied, like 500,000 men? Those men could have easily came into use later on like in Operation Overlord, and Noth Africa and all throughout Italy. The only problem; they lost pretty much all of their artillery as it happened.
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#7 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 06:37 AM

The Battle of Britain was also important, a savoior for the USA. The whole ordeal was intresting and luck for the British. The British were luckey that the Nazi's bombed London. That could man their sector stations (Radar stations) could get rebuilt after the Nazi's had concentrated so hard on destryoing them since they were the reasons the British Spitfires and Hurricanes could get into the air to intercept them. The Brirsh also made the Nazi's lose a lot of experienced piolets and planes, leaving a large whole in their air force. If the British lost, the Germans would have those like 1,500 or so planes and piolets, leaving the USA to go in there doomed. So I would like some you you guys to vote for it.
Who voted for the Battle of Iwo Jima? Could you please explain why?
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#8 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 11:13 AM

The only thing that saved England is the English Channell. The countries that the germans took all had borders. They jumped from country to country. England is an Island. A boat invasion would probably work but at what cost. Lucky is England. As far as Dunkirk, it's hard to keep all your artilery when your pushed to the edge of the water.
0

#9 User is offline   ukjet Icon

  • Line Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:High Wycombe , England
  • Interests:Currently serving in the Royal Air Force. Followed the Jets for over 25 years.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 03:19 PM

Battle Of Britain.

end of debate.

The Royal Air Forces' finest hour.

I'm proud to be a serving member today.

drinks.gif
<a href="http://userbars.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2047/metsubxx7.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /></a>
<a href="http://userbars.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1328/neyyorkjetseq6.gif" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /></a>
<a href="http://userbars.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/662/alkalinetrioet2.png" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /></a>
<a href="http://userbars.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3939/englanduserqp2.png" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /></a>
<a href="http://userbars.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3168/rafmt8.gif" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /></a>
0

#10 User is offline   JetsRock1991 Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,048
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Florida (Originially from Willingboro New Jersey
  • Interests:Playing and watching football, Working out,sleeping

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 03:25 PM

thats what i voted
0

#11 User is offline   ellisjersey92 Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,168
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Jersey

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 03:43 PM

is the invasion of normandy not on there, not considered a battle, or on there under a different name? as i said before...i dont know much about WWII besides the obvious.

0

#12 User is offline   LocoJet Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,651
  • Joined: 30-March 05

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 04:40 PM

all the battles were tied together and it's hard to say one is more important than the other. it's hard to pick just one but if i had to i'd pick stalingrad. the germans lost the 6th field army as well as the 4th armored panzer army along with 2 romanian and 1 italian armies. germany lost nearly 1.5 million men either killed, wounded, captured or m.i.a. which was nearly 1/4 of all german forces on the eastern front. there is no telling how many the russians lost but they could afford it. the russian:german death ratio was 15:1 for the whole war if that is any indication.

i think it was so important because it was the turning point on the eastern front. the eastern front was so important because it took up so much of germany's resources. if there were no eastern front then we would have probably never even tried operation overlord because it would have been suicide.

i think the beginning of the end for germany is when they attacked russia in the first place. battles like stalingrad or kursk and kharkov were just small points in germany's great blunder of attacking the ussr. another blunder was declaring on the usa. we bombed them back into the stoneage before and after overlord. it was just a matter of time.
0

#13 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 05:42 PM

That is true about England, the Germans had a hard time getting their ME-109's over the channel as the bombers escorts, so when the raid was over the fighters never had the fuel to get over back to Germany, so thank God for the P-51 and Spitfire. But don't bring down the RAF Reg, they were outnumbered all the time, there were times where the Germans threw like 700 planes against the Brit's 200 or so and they repelled them. They did it on almost no rest too.
EllisJersey, D-Day was Operation Overlord, but there were so many D-Day's like Iwo Jima, Guadacanal etc. I just put it as Overlord.
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#14 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 05:46 PM

Russian defeating the Germans started the downfall. 7 out of 10 germans killed in WWII, were killed by Soviets. That crippled the Germans. End of story.
0

#15 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 05:52 PM

Dang it, anyone know what Midway is all about?
I can see the love for Barbossa here, but in Midway if Japan got it they could have taken Hawaii and from there start to bomb factories in California, giving less supplies for troops fighting for us anywhere. Remeber they were willing to die, so they wouldn't mind going on a one way suicide mission. Japan started the whole ordeal really in 1931 by invading Manchuira or whatever that place is.
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#16 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 06:10 PM

All great battles. Then you should start 2 polls then. The pacific front or the war in Europe. Yamamoto played his card and he knew he failed after just 6 months. It's not the love for Barbarosa. It's the outcome. That german loss made sure they would never recover. The war in Russia crippled the germans and destroy thier allies except for japan at the time.
0

#17 User is offline   Matador Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Miami, Florida

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 07:57 PM

Barbarossa is the key turning point of the war. But German strategic errors laid the groundwork for disaster.

After Stalingrad, the Germans recovered faily quickly by counter attacking the Soviet advance and retaking Kharkov, destroying a significant portion of the Soviet forces that had encicled Stalingrad.

Germany still had one last chance to force the decision in thier favor at Kursk. They lost that chance, and the destruction of Army Group Center sealed Germany's fate.

We must remember not to underestimate the achievements of German arms. With chronically manpower and equipment short units from the beginning of Barbarossa, they managed to destroy almost 25 million Soviet soldiers for a loss of approximaty a million and a quarter casualties.

Germany was able to hold out on a three front war longer than the Germans did during WWI.
QUOTE
The root dilemma of our time is that if the quest for peace turns into the sole objective of policy, the fear of war becomes a weapon in the hands of the most ruthless; it produces moral disarmament"

                                    -Henry Kissinger; White House Years
0

#18 User is offline   Chadforpresidentin08 Icon

  • 05 M. I. P. Award/06 Teen MVP Award
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,026
  • Joined: 01-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois (Originally from New York)
  • Interests:Jets and Yanks

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 12 May 2005 - 08:01 PM

That's what I went with Barbossa. But you're right about starting another poll on the most important front or campaign, the European or Pacific.
But the same thing was with Midway Reg, the Japanese lost 4 MAJOR carriers, including the flagship Akagi which was one of thier 3 largest carriers.
The Hiryu was also large too, which was sunk. Also remeber we were HUGE underdogs there, 30-40 ships against 190-200! We lost the Yorktown which was in there, not the Lexington, sorry about that.
But this was Japan's first major loss, the worse outcome in the war before was Coral Sea, which was a draw but they overall won, there sinking the Lexington, while losing only a small carrier in the Shoho or Soho, some wierd name. This ruined their naval aviation and destryed 4 of their main carriers out of 8, BIG loss on their part.
I think the Pacific campaign was more important due to the fact Japan was unstoppable, Midway really hit them hard thanks to the fact our ships were discovered (Crazy luck there.) and they had to rearm their planes with torpedoes, when they had bombs to bomb Midway's airfield. Midway saved us all, an island 3 miles sqaure is the reason we won for the facts that I have already posted. Just imagine the horror they could inflict on us with all 8 carriers and TONS of oil off Midway, the only thing stopping them is Pearl Harbour and the air bases surrounding it that were already in shambles. The Japanese were undoubtingly more determined to win, the Germans had lots of traitors, like Rommel, the Japanese had none, not to mention a stronger and tougher army, they'd die at their own free will so Tojo was happy. Thank God we beat them, and the Nazi's.
"You ask, what is our aim?... It is victory, victory at all cost" Winston Churchill.
Member since March 25, 2005.
0

#19 User is offline   JSOTF Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,330
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:El Paso

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 13 May 2005 - 01:16 PM

What would have happended if we never fought in WWII?
0

#20 User is offline   reg83ny Icon

  • TMZ Correspondent
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 4,578
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beantown...I missed NY

  • MLB:

Posted 13 May 2005 - 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Matador @ May 12 2005, 09:32 PM)
We must remember not to underestimate the achievements of German arms. With chronically manpower and equipment short units from the beginning of Barbarossa, they managed to destroy almost 25 million Soviet soldiers for a loss of approximaty a million and a quarter casualties.




Good point Matador. But the reason that happen, was due to Stalin's purge of the soviet officer Corp. Including the top generals. Stalin, like Hitler was paranoid and believe everyone was out to get him. The lack of leadership by the Soviet army showed before Barbarosa when the Russia invaded Finland. A country with an army outnumbered almost 10-1. They mauled the Russian. Hitler took notice of that war and said the Soviets are a rotten structure and would fall. Whe the Germans invaded, the soviets generals and other officers were either dead or in the Gulags. The germans captured more prisoners than any army before that. Privates became captains overnight with the purge. That's the reason for the high loses. Most of those new officers would run at the site of Germans and catch rides with retreating civilians. Stalin's order to put blockade troops to shoot anyone who retreat stop that. Germans were good fighters but the soviets at first had noone to lead them.

I'm not bringing down the RAF. They fought like hell for their conutry. I never did say anything about the RAF. The spitfire was equalled to the ME-109. They wasn't around at Dunkirk. Fishermen's boat were crossing the Channell to scoop up the british troops.
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users