Silkroad Online Forums

you guys are going way off topic

Who the hell said that was effective? That means that Russia were morons putting those type of KIDS out there.. Not to mention killing off the "Cowards".. then blame nations like America for not helping. Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.

more like a gun and a handful of bullets between 2 soldiers

USSR was still industrialization its production force and shortages were common

Oh I knew I forgot something, yeah. One soldier shoots, other has about like 5-10 bullets.. If the soldier with the gun dies, the guy with the ammo takes over and visa versa. Not to mention they sent out "soldiers" into the battlefield with NOTHING so they had to run to a dead comrad and steal their weapon/ammo.

lol steal their weapon ammo? you mean take not steal rofl

Either way, your argument fails.

I love it when someone is wrong and they start pointing out grammar mistakes like it makes a difference to the main argument at hand.

what argument tell me

[quote="AvAlAnChE1]
Who the hell said that was effective? That means that Russia were morons putting those type of KIDS out there.. Not to mention killing off the "Cowards".. then blame nations like America for not helping. Giving a 15 year old a gun with a handful of bullets does not make him a soldier, it makes him target practice.[/quote]
well, desperate times calls for desperate measures. u have to look at the circumstances at the time. russia neither had the industrial capability nor the national security US had back then. time was almost non-existent for them. germans were literally 1 step away from taking over moscow, they didn't have the luxury of giving 6 weeks of basic infantry training before putting new recruits to the frontline. im sure US would get rather desperate as well if the nazis were at the door step of washington DC.

stalin did prepared the defense of moscow, and if your country is invaded by well trained army you wont put anyone that can hold a weapon to fight?

This is actually something they over-dramatized in Enemy at the Gates. I don't think there was ever an instance where Russia sent soldiers into battle with nothing but a clip of 5 rounds. Yes there were human waves, but they were equipped.

There's a reason there's a super-surplus of Nagant rifles. They made plenty.

I don't think Russia is a weak country. However, I do think there are countries far stronger than them. People often consider them a lot stronger than they are due to their large land area.

On Topic: This thread has gone all over the place, and to be honest I'm kind of confused.

I just want to say, I think that if USA didn't intervene when they did many more lives could/would have been lost. My two-bobs worth.

sucks to be you if you are that recruit
sucks to be you when your son is getting sent off
sucks to be you when your comrades are bunch of noobs


i donno man, i was only given 5 rounds while the mofo in front of me took the rifle in call of duty

IMO that was a part of their strategy to enter the war, why the ****'d they send ships which take forever to cross the sea and take way more men to run when they could have simply sent a plane? They were trying to get americans pissed at the germans. They told the germans that they were doing it too, and the germans were like "yo, we have no problem with you now but if you try and help our enemies we're gonna blow up your ships" and america was like "**** u lol" and then they got some ships blown up.

I think they did that in the first world war as well.

Also, I hate it when people (when referring to the US) say "we" and "us", it's as though they assume they were there when it happened, and they had a say in it.
Unless they invented a time machine and went back in time and told Truman to use the atom bomb, I don't think they should say "we" or "us". Even in modern times, you have no say in what happens, so saying "we" and "us" is dumb, say US or USA or America or whatever.

At the time, moving freight over the ocean was the most efficient and effective way to do so. Good luck moving anything like tanks or artillery in an airplane that runs on props.

how dare you question our armchair general Rainigul

I'm not siding with JustKill or anything, but before, during, and a little after the civil war [IIRC] America also used young adults in their military. I believe they went as low as 12. Mind you; those combatants were not conscripts [excluding Fuhrer Lincoln's case of mass conscription].

a lot of young people just lied about their age and entered the war, no one told them anything. Thats their problem, if they don't get what war is like. Stalin on the other hand, shoved every peasent he had into germany's face, and they all got raped.

True, but back then America was just starting to become established and they did not have the same morals as they had during WWII. Russia is an established country, has had plenty of rulers, has a solid government, yet they still made that stupid choice.

and lol @

lol by the time of the civil war, america had existed for almost 100 years

even today, cargo planes cannot compete with the efficiency (in terms of cost and amount delivered) of ships. How many tanks can a plane carry? How many tanks can a ship carry? Sure it takes a lot longer for each trip, but it is the only way to transport enough supplies for any military build up in a timely fashion.

I was kiddin' man.
Sometimes I'm not serious about my america-hatin'

wow w.w.III russia vs. others , chill out guys this is HISTORY i mean all happened before you born, a japanese can be friend with a american. Imo big power = bullying. This is nature's law powerful survives right? but i can't find any reason for civil deaths @ england (in ww2 ger.) @iraq (us) @ vietnam (us), @japan (ww2 us) etc. there will be always massacres in world but todays bully is as you all know america i hate america's politicy (not americans).We have 2 fresh example afghanistan and iraq and we all can see it always goes worse... i wonder what would you do if you are not american but iraqi.

JEALOUS! JEALOUS!JEALOUS!JEALOUS! JEALOUS!
JEALOUS! JEALOUS! JEALOUS! JEALOUS! JEALOUS!

jp lmao...and you cant learn from your mistakes if you dont understand them...thats why ppl discuss history.

damn i have to explain itagain? america didnt help russia there was 10% of the german soldiers on the front with france russians soldiers after the kursk battle was day after day pushing the germans till the rhin valley by 1943 germany was already losing with help or no russia was gonna win the war we even had soldiers in the west because we wasnt sure japan would attack or not.

Stop being a little git. You're calling every history book a lying sheet of paper. **** off untill you got something to actually contribute that isn't made up in your own twisted mind.

(Sorry I honestly had to fix your paragraph up, I made little to no sense to me )

America didn't help Russia, they helped the world. What happened not long after Japan bombed Darwin, Australia?

The US retaliated with great force after this because it was not only Australian planes and Ships, there was too American planes and ships.

The Theatre of the Eastern Front may have been the bloodiest and the most brutal of all land fights ever fort. However you see, both Stalin and Hitler did not care about casualties and just wanted their goal. That causing great loss of casualties.

Anyway I'm too tired to write now. I'll edit this post in the morning once I've totally rested up. I feel I've gone quite offtopic.

Actually the US sent equipment to Russia too. APCs, tanks, weapons, and such.

Lend-lease motherf*ckers.

us sent tanks ? i wonder why i never seen an american tank in any video of history or video about stalingrad the weapons that russian soldiers had was only PSSH And mosin nagant rifle there was no american weapons there -_-

Then open your eyes. There seems to be a lot of facts you're missing.