...
Your point? The Russia lost *huge* amounts of troops in WWII, but I don't think anyone would argue they lost it. In fact, they were they ones who came out strongest (that is, who gained the most through the course of the war).=JoD=Corithus wrote:
North Vietnamize losses in that time were over 5 million, which is just what they ADMIT to having lost, while US losses where one tenth-ish of those numbers.
I wasn't aware of any treaty. At any rate, the US must have known the North Vietnamese wouldn't hold to it. Even if they did, the Nationalists would have done in the ruling regime in the south.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
We didn't pull out because of losses, the war becoming unpopular, or any other half baked theories, we left, because we had established a peace treaty with Nothern Vietnam, a treaty they coincidentally broke as soon as American forces had left the country.
Fact is, no matter what you say about not losing the war, you did. The US was, at every turn, unable to find and target it's enemies.
No it isn't. Another poster claimed that numbers don't matter in modern warfare, I cited an example proving him wrong.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
At any rate, this is off topic, please remain focused.
People said that Germany could take Russia easily pre-WWII. In the end, it lost Hitler the war. Supply lines, for one, become a huge issue, as does the Russian psyche.(SGS)Pvt.Kosak wrote:
UK,France and Germany and Europe could all invade Russia.No Problem.
Or, they could use the oppurtunity to take America's place at the top of the food chain. They certainly wouldn't want America's enemies to be knocked down too far. America going to war is good for China, as it stimulates the American economy. And with no enemies, they won't need to go to war.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
I don't think China is a problem. They Need the US ,UK,Europe for Trade if they don't have these tradepowers they would stop having trade growth and be a third world country.
Why would Iraq side w/ the US against Iran? And what about Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Lebanon etc., as well as Africa.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
And About the Middle East. If US pulled out of Iraq and got Iraq to get a army again,US and Iraq could invade Iran easily. Europe Could Help too.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-21 02:13:29)
Man makes some good points!
Last edited by Jepeto87 (2006-05-21 03:40:31)
well this isn't 1940 this is the year 2006 we can probably crush them in a short time, what`s is the worst thing they can do look at us from there T-80 and T-90 and then die in flaming inferno.Bubbalo wrote:
People said that Germany could take Russia easily pre-WWII. In the end, it lost Hitler the war. Supply lines, for one, become a huge issue, as does the Russian psyche.(SGS)Pvt.Kosak wrote:
UK,France and Germany and Europe could all invade Russia.No Problem.
There's nothing wrong with the T-90, I'm sure the Germans had a similar attitude when sitting in there Tiger and Panther tanks only to "die in flaming inferno" as a hoard of T-34/85 went screaming past on a rampage of death and destruction all the way to Berlin!
Cheers!
Cheers!
well there is one minor problem withe the T-90 like every other russian tank in history, they will get shot befor they can get in range withe there guns.
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-05-21 12:51:13)
America's ability to conventionally bomb targets from its own soil would help considerably.
Pretty much even the worst case senario is that NATO gets pushed back to U.K., the US, and Australia and then we just fight out, our MASSIVE industrial power would win over all, think about what happened in WWII, We have a huge industrial power and with all the steel mills over our country the oil in alaska and canada and the Mid-East(no way in hell we are gonna let Russia take that) we will start taking back the countries that were lost.
Yeah but the Tiger, Panther and Elephant (Not really a tank I know) had ability to fire at longer rangesherrr_smity wrote:
well there is one minor problem withe the T-90 like every other Russian tank in history, they will get shot befor they can get in range withe there guns.
that there allied counterparts. Quantity is a quality of its own.
Cheers!
PS: Sorry to the guy whose quote I stole and keep using, the quantity one. Its good!
Which is funny, 'cos back in 1940, they were thinking about how it wasn't 1914.herrr_smity wrote:
well this isn't 1940 this is the year 2006 we can probably crush them in a short time, what`s is the worst thing they can do look at us from there T-80 and T-90 and then die in flaming inferno.
Erm, no. Australia is already the front line down under. We'd fall pretty quick.Capt. Foley wrote:
Pretty much even the worst case senario is that NATO gets pushed back to U.K., the US, and Australia
You mean when Russia wiped the floor with the Germans and only stopped because America had nukes?Capt. Foley wrote:
and then we just fight out, our MASSIVE industrial power would win over all, think about what happened in WWII,
And what about China? And the Middle East countries themselves? I think you'd find the Chinese industrial might would outstrip you pretty quick. And do to rebel forces in the Middle East, you wouldn't have reliable access to fuel, which is the key to your one advantage.Capt. Foley wrote:
We have a huge industrial power and with all the steel mills over our country the oil in alaska and canada and the Mid-East(no way in hell we are gonna let Russia take that) we will start taking back the countries that were lost.
people give the chinese too mcuh credit ...2 billion people doesnt = military power
look how badly the japs beat them 90% of thier population live in the countryside and thier equipment isnt anywhere near as advanceed as the us ..
us wins the airwar quickly then bombs the shit out of them ...china has a long way to go ..without china any non nato is not worth mentioning
look how badly the japs beat them 90% of thier population live in the countryside and thier equipment isnt anywhere near as advanceed as the us ..
us wins the airwar quickly then bombs the shit out of them ...china has a long way to go ..without china any non nato is not worth mentioning
Bubbalo i think you have to much faith in the Russians LOL
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-05-21 15:41:20)
Its 1 billion and during the War with the Japs China wasn't a unified country. There was the Nationalists, the Communists and the odd warlord fighting for control. And it wasn't industrialized at all.
I'd agree with most of what Bubbalo's saying. I'm not saying Russia would win, I'm just saying they shouldn't be written off so easily. Its bad to assume your superior (not saying NATO's not, you should just plan for the worst) just look at the old ancient empires that fell with that attitude, Rome bought down by the "barbaric" Gauls etc. Yes I know it was almost 2 thousand years ago but I think its a good example!
Cheers!
I'd agree with most of what Bubbalo's saying. I'm not saying Russia would win, I'm just saying they shouldn't be written off so easily. Its bad to assume your superior (not saying NATO's not, you should just plan for the worst) just look at the old ancient empires that fell with that attitude, Rome bought down by the "barbaric" Gauls etc. Yes I know it was almost 2 thousand years ago but I think its a good example!
Cheers!
Last edited by Jepeto87 (2006-05-21 15:48:44)
Where are you from Bubbalo?
Wasnt aloud to target and destroy its enemies -
Paris Peace Accords -I wasn't aware of any treaty. At any rate, the US must have known the North Vietnamese wouldn't hold to it. Even if they did, the Nationalists would have done in the ruling regime in the south.
Fact is, no matter what you say about not losing the war, you did. The US was, at every turn, unable to find and target it's enemies.
Wasnt aloud to target and destroy its enemies -
the russian aint got shit and you all know it
when you excercise too much restrain in war you will lose.
Hmmm, aren't you more likely to lose from lack of restraint, i.e. overstretching?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
when you excercise too much restrain in war you will lose.
^^Thats not what he's talking about tard.
when a military body is not allowed to pursue and destroy the enemy to the extent of their ability, the enemy gets stronger and smarter. we need more operation phantom furies
I truly can't understand this obsession of people that china is hardcore. I don't agree. China has one thing going for it and that is numbers. Remember, Iraq at the time of the gulf war had the THIRD largest army in the WORLD, THAT'S A DAMN LOT OF TROOPS! But they were of similiar quality to the chinese soldiers of today, in my opinion. China does, of course, have way higher morale than Iraqi soldiers of the day. China would no doubt be far more difficult to defeat than Iraq, but as long as they cling to their AK-47 adaptation for their standard rifle, I can't really say that they have good enough technology to stand up the US right now. The US also is racking up experienced soldiers in the hundreds of thousands with the war in Iraq, so they are keeping what soldiers they have now in top shape. Plus, if there ever was a real war, american recruitment would jump, I assure you. The US only has 10 active divisions (one of the smallest standing armies they've ever had) and they are still second or third in numbers, plus the super advanced technology. It would be interesting to see, but I wouldn't count China as being able to easily hold off an American army. It would no doubt be very touch just due to the numbers and the Chinese morale, but right now I see the Americans being able to beat China if they just dedicated their whole army to it.
Oh, and Russia is...yeah...able to take Europe? Not at all, the European Union is almost as advanced as the American military and since they are largely united, I think that the poor Russian army of today would not be able to defeat Europe at all, they have numbers too, but not really enough.
Oh, and Russia is...yeah...able to take Europe? Not at all, the European Union is almost as advanced as the American military and since they are largely united, I think that the poor Russian army of today would not be able to defeat Europe at all, they have numbers too, but not really enough.
war with china would be the end of the world
That statement is mostly true, but not in every situation. I was speaking in general historic concepts (e.g. Rome, Nazi Germany) when I mentioned overstretching as a more likely road to defeat. Shame Mr. Nut Grabber didn't realise that:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
when a military body is not allowed to pursue and destroy the enemy to the extent of their ability, the enemy gets stronger and smarter. we need more operation phantom furies
Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
^^Thats not what he's talking about tard.
if china started by invading russia russia would have a hard time defending due to such a large front and so if the nato forces also attacked russia the would fall very easily
Mapping out a modern war with out WMD is an oxymoron. Too hard to tell.
A smart man once said to me. "I can not argue the hypothetical"
A smart man once said to me. "I can not argue the hypothetical"
well if Russia invades NATO they would have to fight from the north cape to the middle east, i don't know if you have looked at a map lately but that is a long ass front.