Otmorosok and Guru

Who is right most the time in the arguments between the two?

  • GURU IS right most the time, AMERICA > russia

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • There both idiots!!

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Otmorosok IS right most the time, Go MOTHERLAND!!

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23

amrtin77

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Website
Visit site
otmo, the winter WAS the biggest factor in russia defeating the germans. ok you obviously know nothing about a fast moving war, what happens when you run through a foreign country smashing all of the armies like germany did to russia? germany was DEMOLISHING russia until the winter came. you see what happens is the supply lines are so long because russia is a HUGE country, and they could not fly planes in or drive in to feed, arm, reinforce their troops, and hitler REFUSED to let the germans retreat. so the germans starved to death and had no supplies because the weather was too bad for supplying an army. the russians HAD ALL THEIR FOOD AND EQUIPMENT RIGHT THERE, they were defending. when the germans were starving to death and freezing to death because of bad equipment the russians surrounded and destroyed them.

and how can you say russia did all the work if they fought on ONE front? there was the east, the west, the african, and the pacific. pacific pretty useless in the war except it took the japs away from a possible pincer on russia.... but it was still a front.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
so what if they were only on one front? you only need one strong one i dont realy think that matters.... but think about it this way what would've of happened without the russian army? winter or not if the russians wernt there they would of had another country attack from FACE IT WE PROBALY WOULDNT OF WON WITHOUT RUSSIA ok?
 

amrtin77

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Website
Visit site
i know that, but he seems to think russia could have won without the US. you NEED both to have won world war 2.
 

Guru

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
which spitfire was the zero better than the mark 9?? the mark 11?? which ?? obviously anyone could tell you are a yank because they think think the ZERO was better than the spitfire because it ran rings round anything the yankes had... so the japaneese had jet planes but were they better than the spitfire? probally not because they would of had a limited time developing them... THE p-52 was a copy of the spitfire it was slightly different in shape and it had fatter wings for bigger fuel tanks, longer range... it was a bag of shit untill they put in the MERLIN ENGINE (same BRITISH engine that the spitfire has) and the spitfire was FASTER than the mustang (aka american version of spitfire) The mosquito(british plane) was FASTER than the lighting it had 2 engines and it came out before THE LIGHTING where did the idea of two engines come from? nope not yankes... lighting was a bit faster than the spitfire though it wasnt nearly as good
The Zero could have easily taken out any version of the spitfire, for the shear of fact of its amazing manuverability early in the war.

Actually, the Lightning was about 60 mph faster than the mosquito, hate to burst your bubble. Also, once again you are wrong, because the Lockheads project for a dual engine fighter began in 1937, the mosquito project didn't began until 1938.

And no, I am not a "yankee" you stupid ass. They would live in the North. I live in North Carolina, which is classified as the South, making me more of a Confederate/Rebel if anything.

The mustang also had a better firing mechanism than the spitfire, making it very easy to hit it's target. And, once again, you are wrong about the spitfire. The mustang was approximately 60 mph faster than the spitfire, and with better engineered firing mechanism, was a better plane.

So, one again, basicly everything you said was wrong.

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
so what if they were only on one front? you only need one strong one i dont realy think that matters.... but think about it this way what would've of happened without the russian army? winter or not if the russians wernt there they would of had another country attack from FACE IT WE PROBALY WOULDNT OF WON WITHOUT RUSSIA ok?
Once again, your ignorant kids are forgeting the invention of the atomic bomb. We could have beaten anyone at that point, considering we were the only one who had them.
 

amrtin77

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Website
Visit site
the spit could outturn anything if im not mistaken though... im not sure if i could outturn a zero though, they never fought eachother.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
okay im going to jump back into this discussion...

1)Britain was the key factor in ww2. without Britain, the war would have lasted less than a year. you know how long it took to defeat france? 3 weeks, because the germans went right around the marginel(sp?) line. then the "schifelin planlike" strategy hitler had. where he wanted to wipe france and return to the eastern front. without britain, america would have NO foothold in europe, therefore detering any shot at invading europe. If russia was all alone, they would lose.

2)Italy developed the jet engine, they gave the designs to japan.

3)the zero would own any ww2 aircraft in a dogfight.
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by amrtin77
otmo, the winter WAS the biggest factor in russia defeating the germans. ok you obviously know nothing about a fast moving war, what happens when you run through a foreign country smashing all of the armies like germany did to russia? germany was DEMOLISHING russia until the winter came. you see what happens is the supply lines are so long because russia is a HUGE country, and they could not fly planes in or drive in to feed, arm, reinforce their troops, and hitler REFUSED to let the germans retreat. so the germans starved to death and had no supplies because the weather was too bad for supplying an army. the russians HAD ALL THEIR FOOD AND EQUIPMENT RIGHT THERE, they were defending. when the germans were starving to death and freezing to death because of bad equipment the russians surrounded and destroyed them.

and how can you say russia did all the work if they fought on ONE front? there was the east, the west, the african, and the pacific. pacific pretty useless in the war except it took the japs away from a possible pincer on russia.... but it was still a front.
We did most work cause we took Berlin, and we killed most of them. Oh and Guru supporters before saying that i am saying patriotic bullshit, read what Guru says, his bullshit is as patriotic as mine.

Oh and Britain was important but as a supporting nation, the main 2 forces that actually ended WW2 were Russia and US.

Originally posted by amrtin77
i know that, but he seems to think russia could have won without the US. you NEED both to have won world war 2.
I never said that, yes i know that Russia would get invaded without help from US, but if that happened then Hitler would have US and other nations overrun easy. And idiots like Guru think that US could have won the war alone, or without Russia. I wander was he born an idiot or was he hit in the head to many times in school, by people who beated him up?
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
you know why the russians took berlin? because the combined airforce of the american and british allies bombed the hell out of all the german defences. hey, napoleon took moscow with little of a scruff. so what? when russia got around to invading actual german territory, the american and english allies were through the thick forests in germany. Who defeated the japanese? who defeated the italians? Russia only conquered berlin because they couldnt protect it any longer. where were their resources coming from? the germans gave up by that time. did you capture hitler? he commited suicide. mouselini was beheaded, and the japanese emperor stepped down.
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
Oh yeah you did good job nuking Japan, besides if Germany hasnt lost most of its power attacking us then other allies would not stand a chance.
 

Guru

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by Otmorosok
We did most work cause we took Berlin, and we killed most of them. Oh and Guru supporters before saying that i am saying patriotic bullshit, read what Guru says, his bullshit is as patriotic as mine.



You took berlin out of stupidity. Stalin was a terrible leader, and loss 70,000 men taking berlin, and if he had waited to cooridinate the attack with the allies, he would have lossed a lotttt less troops. Why you brag about your country's stupidity, is stupid.



I never said that, yes i know that Russia would get invaded without help from US, but if that happened then Hitler would have US and other nations overrun easy. And idiots like Guru think that US could have won the war alone, or without Russia. I wander was he born an idiot or was he hit in the head to many times in school, by people who beated him up?
Even if Russia was taken out, the US still would have held. I'm not sure how many times we have to say it, we had atomics bombs. We could have easily taken out Germany on our own. Why you go and flame me for being right is immature. Grow the **** up and get the stick out of your ass, kid.
 

Ntrik_

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
9,687
Reaction score
4
Sry to interrupt, but i couldnt help it
And who the hell said that we are both idiots. I have you know my IQ is 155
Stop lying Otmorosok, that would mean ur IQ is about Einstein's IQ and you should've prob done something wonderful enuf to be on the news.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by Guru
The Zero could have easily taken out any version of the spitfire, for the shear of fact of its amazing manuverability early in the war.

Actually, the Lightning was about 60 mph faster than the mosquito, hate to burst your bubble. Also, once again you are wrong, because the Lockheads project for a dual engine fighter began in 1937, the mosquito project didn't began until 1938.

And no, I am not a "yankee" you stupid ass. They would live in the North. I live in North Carolina, which is classified as the South, making me more of a Confederate/Rebel if anything.

The mustang also had a better firing mechanism than the spitfire, making it very easy to hit it's target. And, once again, you are wrong about the spitfire. The mustang was approximately 60 mph faster than the spitfire, and with better engineered firing mechanism, was a better plane.

"

So, one again, basicly everything you said was wrong.



Once again, your ignorant kids are forgeting the invention of the atomic bomb. We could have beaten anyone at that point, considering we were the only one who had them.
"North American Aviation originally designed the Mustang in response to a British specification. They agreed to produce the first prototype only 4 months after signing the contract in April 1940. By the end of 1941 North American had delivered the first Mustang to England for test flights. These first Mustangs were powered by the Allison V-1710 engine, a ok engine, but one which didn't operate well at high altitudes.
In April, 1942, a British test pilot, Ronald Harker, flew the Mustang and was quite impressed by it. He suggested that the new plane would be a natural fit with the Rolls Royce Merlin 60-series engine, well-suited to high altitudes. At the prodding of Major Thomas Hitchco.ck, the Americans began working along the same lines (using the Packard license-built version of the Merlin), and the first Merlin-equipped Mustang, the P-51B, flew in November, 1942. The results were impressive, to say the least. At 30,000 feet, the improved Mustang reached 440 MPH, 100 MPH faster than the Allison-equipped Mustang. "

oh look here..BRITISH DESIGN, BRITISH ENGINE (when the alison was in the mustang it was a bag of shit) it got sent to BRITAIN.. (because britain knows what its doing with spitfires..) BRITISH test pilot.. btw guru how can it go faster?? when its heavier and got the same engine as the spitfire???? The british stopped making them and sold most of them to spain and starting making jets.heres more quotes...

"They are roughly the same size, although the Spitfires were significantly thinner in the body and harder to hit. Both were made of metals. As far as I can tell it was fuel tanks and performance requirements. The Spitfire was signficantly lighter than the Mustang despite similar dimensions.Both were well armoured. The Spitfires had something unique starting the ‘strike aircraft’ theory we use in jet-fighters today. They had ‘Universal Wings’, meaning the wings were ingeniously designed to be able to be modified not only for different roles and weaponry but effectiveness at different altitudes, something no other fighter could do." heres yet another..

"The Mustang could outclimb the Spitfire, but not with fully loaded fuel tanks oddly enough. It was also vulnerable for the first legs of its flight. Both were buggers to take off with, the Spitfire because of its narrow based landing gear(like the Me109) and the Mustang because of the weight and bulk of the huge extra-fuel belly or heavy wing tanks it carried(without which its range was far less). The Mustang pilots had to start drawing from the extra fuel tanks immediately which sometimes cause problems. For the first while all this weight and mass made the P51s very sluggish to handle and Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests and P47 Thunderbolts were often assigned in the air over their take-off bases to protect them from enemy air raids in which the Mustangs were highly vulnerable when loaded for escort missions just like the Me262s were vulnerable taking off.

The Spitfire’s firepower was generall better than the Mustang. Being built as an interceptor more it was more agile than the Mustang. The Spitfire could accelerate faster, turn, bank and roll faster and climb higher.Both later versions had the British idea for a more vulnerable but better visibility bubble canopy for the ****pit, and advantage over the Me109 for example. The Spitfire could perform better at various altitudes than the Mustang which was best suited to high altitude dog-fighting. This was just as well as the original use of the American engined P51 was as ground support in which its scoop belly cowling proved too vulnerable." BRITISH BETTER visibility bubble canopy

"The British Supermarine Spitfire is one of the most recognized planes of all time, and for good reason. When Britain was on its knees and vulnerable against the relentlessly pounding Luftwaffe attacks, the Spitfire saved the day. In the Battle of Britain, a battle to last the ages, the Spitfire held off the German air force, including its Messerchmitts, from attaining air superiority, making it the best defensive weapon of the war. The Spitfire could outrun the BF-109 with a top speed of 416 mile per hour.The Spitfire was superior to every other German aircraft during the Battle of Britain. The Supermarine had eight .303 caliber machine guns, or four .303 caliber machine guns and two 20 mm Hispano cannons. It could make for an effective dive bomber, carrying either 1000 pounds of bombs, or eight rockets. "It was effective against small targets such as tanks, and enemy troops." The Spitfire was also the first aircraft to shoot down a jet fighter in combat. It shot down the Messerchmitt Me262, while diving from a high altitude (Sundsig-Hansen)."

"The pride and power of the Royal Air Force, the Spitfire led Britain through the Second World War with gallant victories. Its superb performance never faltered. With the help of aircraft designers and many improvements, it was able to keep up with the best of the German fighters, and it was well equipped defend its nation. At first designed with less than adequate armament, the Spitfire was quickly modified and became the perfect aircraft. It was a favorite among many, and not just the pilots. The fighter was the "jewel of the people," and symbolized Britain's refusal to give up, and their unending strength."btw i couldnt care less where you live yank = american north or south well lets move on now what do u think about the M4 Sherman? was it a great tank? and maybe to go far as to win the war?
 

Kuzmich

Member!
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
0
Location
Russia, Moscow
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by Guru



You took berlin out of stupidity. Stalin was a terrible leader, and loss 70,000 men taking berlin, and if he had waited to cooridinate the attack with the allies, he would have lossed a lotttt less troops. Why you brag about your country's stupidity, is stupid.




Even if Russia was taken out, the US still would have held. I'm not sure how many times we have to say it, we had atomics bombs. We could have easily taken out Germany on our own. Why you go and flame me for being right is immature. Grow the **** up and get the stick out of your ass, kid. [/B]
Well first go **** yourself. After you come back read this. First i never said Stalin was a good leader, second we took Berlin and thats the fact, and that ended the war with Germany. Now nukes werent invented until after the war with Germany, oh and we tested our nuke 2 months after you tested yours, so if thinking the way you thinking then russia would be able to win the war alone, because we too had nukes. Now kid, you are very happy to live in US i am sure that is probably the only place there a retard like you could still be alive. About my IQ yes i lyied, but Alchi made me do it.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
Pls stop calling people kids.... if your not a kid your either a pedo or some old lonely guy who has nothing better to do (i know that you 2 are lying if u ever said you wernt a kid)
and if he had waited to cooridinate the attack with the allies, he would have lossed a lotttt less troops. Why you brag about your country's stupidity, is stupid.
how do u know that???? how do u know how long it would take?? If russia was so stupid they would of failed taking berlin.... he never said his country was stupid so how can he brag about it? genious
that would mean ur IQ is about Einstein's IQ
yes though i might become smarter than he was considering the time we live in now
If russia was all alone, they would lose.
true but if america was all alone they would lose..
 

PsYcHoSiD77

BattleForums Junior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
Honestly though, what does it matter? I mean in order for the allies to be victorious things had to happen exactly the way they did. EVERYONE helped. And don't give me the bullshit "well my country did this better and my country did that batter, we took this city and this front blah blah blah blah blah". No one country could have done it alone, it was a team effort. And what is done is done, we won, end of story.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
if america was alone, they wouldnt fight...germany at least...we only joined because we were involved in one war already and it would be logical to help the British since after the germans are done with europe, they go and help their japanese allies. remember, the war in the pacific lasted a year longer.
 

Guru

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Website
Visit site
Originally posted by Otmorosok
Well first go **** yourself. After you come back read this. First i never said Stalin was a good leader, second we took Berlin and thats the fact, and that ended the war with Germany. Now nukes werent invented until after the war with Germany, oh and we tested our nuke 2 months after you tested yours, so if thinking the way you thinking then russia would be able to win the war alone, because we too had nukes. Now kid, you are very happy to live in US i am sure that is probably the only place there a retard like you could still be alive. About my IQ yes i lyied, but Alchi made me do it.
While I'm ****ing myself, try and grow up a bit.


Yes, you took berlin, but the fact you lost 70,000 people in process (not to mention you only took it because of all the UK/US bombing raids) is nothing to brag about.

Considering Russia wouldnt have been around that long to test your nuke, its obvious Russia couldnt have won alone.

Stop with the immature comments and grow up.



Pls stop calling people kids.... if your not a kid your either a pedo or some old lonely guy who has nothing better to do (i know that you 2 are lying if u ever said you wernt a kid)


Stop being so childish, kid.


how do u know that???? how do u know how long it would take?? If russia was so stupid they would of failed taking berlin.... he never said his country was stupid so how can he brag about it? genious


How do I know? Is a little something I like to call "common sense". If Russia was so stupid, they would have loss 70,000 men taking one citry, which they did. That files under the "stupid" category.


true but if america was all alone they would lose..
Wrong. If america was all alone, they would have fought the Japanesse and gone home. They would have never crossed paths with the Germans, although had they, they would have one.


and Lawernence, the Japanesse and Germans were allied only because they had a common enemy. Had America not been at war with the Germans, Japan and Germany would have never become allys
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
Wrong... how can u be wrong in this you ****ing dumnshit its interpretation.. hitler would of delclared war on america sooner or later and how do you know that japan wouldnt of been allied with germany anyway.. i cant believe you can call russia stupid remember pearl habour..2,500 Americans were killed and 1,600 wounded **** knows how many ships and planes were destroyed... and you shot down about 7 outdated japanese aircraft.. where.. russian lost about 70,000 taking the capital of the strongest country in the world.. they were extremely out gunned its what they HAD to do.. there generals wernt sat all cosey in some remote place radioing orders.. the generals were up front fighting with his men if his men died so did he.. the russians didnt prepare for war for years.. they had it forced onto them, stalin couldnt believe germany was attacking them. 10 year agreement... they had good stuff just not enough to go around.
 

amrtin77

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Website
Visit site
i believe the allies reached berlin not even a day after russin. and pearl harbor was a COMPLETE SUPRISE, attacking a city IS NOT. they coul have waited for the allies and made a joint attack on the city but they stupidly charged ahead is what guru was saying.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
suprise???? lol a load of out dated japanese planes fly over the ocean and its a suprise?? Attacking a city wasnt.... so? isnt that sorta in russia's favour. how did russia know how long the allies were going to be?? how did russia know that if they waited it would turn out for the best? how did russia know berlin wasnt going to be strenthened?.. quicker is better generally.. general custer STUPIDLY charged the indians at the battle of little big horn... Stalin wasnt as stupid as that. if they did wait there would be more people to fight... but there would be more people to die..

You mock the russians but the american soilders would of thanked them for saving the from fighting another hard battle.. Guru cant even spell city or japanese right what "comon" sense does he have?
 
Top