Squad ideas to add to the game
Bm-13 katyusha
Waffen ss
soviet female Sniper squad
night witch squad
Tokyo Rose radio operator Squad
1 Like
There’s so many of them already.
3 Likes
Alredy in the game
Alredy in the game x2
What different can have that squad to normal\rocket radioman?
3 Likes
It was the name allied gived to Japanese female radio broadcaster during the war, their job was transmitting to allied forces and allied country, Japanese propaganda about how Japanese was winning the war and allied losing Tons of soldier, they wasn’t soldier btw
2 Likes
I mean, the US WAS losing losing a ton of equipment and personnel up until sheer attrition meant that the IJA basically couldn’t function. The US won on natural
resources, factories, and immigrant labor, not any kind of military superiority.
I mean, Iwo Jima was the sole engagement of the war in which the US took more casualties than the Japanese.
Industrial superiority is related to military superiority, but it is not the same thing.
The US (the country I was born and reside in) has always suffered from idiots who overestimate their own abilities, underestimate their enemies, and just throw lots of money and other people’s kids at the problem.
The US won the war in the Pacific with a functional industrial base and sheer bloody-mindedness. They lost virtually every battle until they killed enough experienced personnel and blew up enough equipment that their enemies could no longer fight effectively.
Because it was an honor to die for the Emperor. Imperial Japan wasn’t without it’s own structural flaws. As evidenced by their lack of experienced pilots beyond a certain point
“How biased can you be? Yes.”
Just for fun, are you Russian or main the Germans?
1 Like
I usually just go queue for whatever. I don’t have a “main”.
I’ve just been hearing what a great country I live in, all my life. I’m somewhere close to the middle of my life, and I’m sick of it. The US leaders have a long history of incompetence and malice, and they deserve very little of the credit they are given.
So pretty much any nation that existed for a while.
Not really unique nor a reason to use that as a argument.
If US really won WW2 because of err “because of muh industry”, why did they (the Soviets, Brits, Spanish, pretty much any empire or modern nation) lost against the North Vietnamese, the Taliban or most insugent organizations? Why could they not kill North Korea and China despite muh industry when both nations had basically no modern industry? Or why did the US fail to win the Invasion of Pig Bay despite muh industry…
Or why couldnt Japan defeat China during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War despite China being ruled by deindustrialized warlords and communists? Why couldnt the Soviets lol-cow the Finns despite muh industry? Why cant the Russians lol-cowing the Ukrainians despite muh industry? Or…
Really, just shittalk with nothing behind beyond average points that apply to any nation, mixed with lack of basic military or political understanding.
I am explaining my reason for why I care about this. You’re right; that’s not an argument.
Because it was a different kind of engagement. The US and IJ were fighting a more or less traditional war against near peers. Also, until the very end of the war; the homelands of neither were in serious danger of a land invasion. The winner just had to be able to keep fighting the longest.
The problem with asymmetric warfare is that it’s usually existential for one side, and as long as the “weaker” side has people willing to take up the cause and have access to household chemicals and/or a black market; the “stronger” side will never really win.
Also, in WW2, China may have been industrially unimpressive, but, and I could be wrong about this, but I believe they supplied equipment to Vietnam and Korea in their conflicts.
The US failed in the “Bay of Pigs” because it was a half baked idea relying heavily on Cubans being complete morons; something they are manifestly not.
Invading China is basically a losing proposition, in any case. Supply lines have to stretch so far and be so vulnerable that a they could be disrupted for days fairly easily. The same problem… Well, anyone who’s ever tried it faces when invading Russia.
The Finns ultimately made huge concessions after the Winter war. USSR had no intention of “ruling over” Finland. It was a territorial dispute that the USSR ultimately came out on top in.
As for the current conflict in Ukraine. Did you miss the fact that NATO has been POURING money and equipment into the conflict? You would know that just paying attention to the US or European media. If you paid any attention to news outside the NATO bubble you might have noticed that while Russia isn’t laying siege to Kiev; to say they’re “losing” or even “not making advances” would be factually incorrect. Also, like the Finland example; it’s essentially a border dispute. Also like Finland, it could have been avoided diplomatically.
I won’t go any further on that topic for reasons I shouldn’t have to explain.
That’s a funny accusation coming from someone who doesn’t understand the concept of asymmetric warfare.
1 Like
Suddenly differntiation matters.
And funny because Vietnam is probably closer to attrition war than the Second World War outside of maybe Italy for the Allies.
And that means they fight the same way and use the same doctrines etc.
That is dumb. Japan was arrogant, but not dumb. They knew they couldnt outlast the U.S. The same applies to the Germans against the Allies and the Soviets. Basic rule: You do not commit (classic) attrition war if you know you will lose it unless you know you will lose and just want the enemy to pay more for their win which is was Germany did in its last days and what Japan did during the Island Jumping and when the Allies were about to invade the main isles.
And as a free and democratic nation, you also do not do that on the basis, because high losses will not make you popular on the home front.
The U.S. did not commit a war of attrition or at the least not in the Pacific. If so, they would have just dig up in isles to the last man if required to make the Japanese bleed… but who was famous for that in the Pacific? Not America. They bombed Japan and sunked the Japenese merchant fleet with subs, but that does not make it a war of attrition.
And lastly, you do not do war of attrition if you constantly invade the enemy, which is what the Allies basically did constantly since Midway (which the US also not won because of attrition)… especially on isles.
You do know that Russia lost the Great War?
The Soviets expected the Red Army to reach the Swedish borders so doubt. Also, how much were the losses of the Soviets again? I think it was 10 times. The Russians were so humaliated, that basically everyone expected them to collapse when the Germans invaded them (which they almost did).
Otherwise they only ran out of ammo, but after the war they got more tanks, mgs and planes because of superior doctrine.
Which they did not do instantly and even now struggle because most Western nations reduced their military strength and industry to combat militiants in the Middle East to secure oil for Merica and uran for France. Russia may be third world, but they still have lots of Soviet crap lying around and their industry is highly militarized and unlike the muh industrials they never stepped down from sending men and men to secure a refrigerator for the Motherland. Only US has decent stock, but they are still Merica and next president may be someone, who does not want support the Kokaine anymore.
And against the Kokaine, Soviet crap from the Cold War is fine because Kokaine also mostly has Soviet crap from the Cold War.
I need to work with someone whose entire rant is based on “US dumb” so I dont know why we should go higher for you.
And funny because the US in Vietnam tried attrition with Westmoreland as main doctrine against commie terrorists while attrition war in the Pacific by the Allies against a actual nation was reduced to destroy the Japanese merchant navy, which is not excatly the same, especially since the Japanese failed hard to protect them due to their awful navy doctrine, further making muh industry pointless (the US lost only 56 or so throughout the entire war while Japan lost more than twice as much on one single front).
Or in short words: If the U.S. solely aimed to outproduce the Japs, why did the Japs almost always not only lost more men and material, but also on multipling level? Why did the Japs just commit atricious defending and the U.S. not?
Really, picking Pacific as prime example for attrition war and America “dumb” and muh industry was stupid. Even at same muh industry, Japan would have lost for very obvious reasons. Their Enlisted tech tree is already bad enough.