It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China and Russia, who would win?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That's the problem. They don't do anywhere near as much as Americans do. The 8,000 British troops in Iraq weren't used in the most important operations. They weren't given the most dangerous towns to occupy.

I think assualting alfaw was important.
It was pure US need to take bagdad, they wanted to take it to show "yeah we took bagdad!"



The British had numerical, and technological advantage all across the board. It wasn't even close. Argentina had no combat experience. It doesn't come close to Iraq in any way.

The mirages should have destroyed our sea harriers.
Also it was down to the pilots skill not the hardware.
The argentinains had french exorcet missiles , a good missile.
They had more troops i believe.



You know, this statement served no purpose. It basically just agreed with my statement. American soldiers practice, and get more of the real thing than anyone else.

Yeah, which sometimes isnt a good thing.



Russian AWAC's and missiles are inferior to America's, so who cares?

You had the advantage nothing like the falklands.



Tanks are modern day cavalry.

Tanks are diffrent at the time tanks where dodgy.
Cavalry can go anywhere practically, tanks cant.



If you're an idiot who accepts what they read in a text book at school, yea. The Germans used a particular attack style. If you don't know that, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So now you think schools lie to you, gees do you ever trust ANYONE!
The germans used a type of attack AKA they derived it off that one style.



The British only used 28,000 men on the ground in the Falklands. That was a long time ago, as well. It was a small operation in comparison to Iraq. The British weren't going up against a massive force of tanks, artillery, and SAM's.

No they where going against a force of 100,000 men.
Signifactly larger force.



As I said, we can put them through more exercises, and simulations than anyone else. They also see actual combat more than anyone else.

Yeah but against who?
You can put them through ones in certain areas, i mean the finnish can put people through arctic warfare more than anyone else.



Well trained at a single aspect of warfare. Americans train in every environment imaginable. We have the luxury of having pretty much everything in our nation geographically. Finland couldn't stop America becauase they're good in the mountains.

They could if they where on the defensive.
They stopped the russians.
A european task force could anihalte any US task force.


No army conducting a military operation could stay within the UN's laws. They could be stretched to fit just about anything.

They managed fine in the falklands, i dont think shooting an unarmed child through the head with a pistol is "streching" the rules.



I doubt they make them better than anyone. And while it's not simple, it's also nowhere near as complicated as making something like the Raptor.

No, but the raptor wont win a war for you.




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Delivwasp, you keep mentioning the superior training of the UK based on the Falkland conflict.

Is it that suprising that a major European power using good (for the time) multi-role fighters were able to at least supress a 3rd world country using outdated French aircraft? They did after all shoot down 2 Mirage IIIE's without loosing an aircraft...

Or did other UK victories impress you, such as sinking an Argentinian vessle (using WWII torpedoes, the vessel itself was a survivor of Pearl Harbor). Or the Royal Marines moderate success using US made amphibious landing craft? Or that the once great royal navy was able to survive a conflict with a 3rd world country while loosing only 5 ships, including an aircraft carrier?

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Starwars51]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by Mishka

Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.

I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.


Interesting point about the US Ballistic missile defense system. Fortunately the US has missiles that are 100% guranteed to defeat the non-existant Russian national ballistic missile defense system.

People don't realize that conflicts are not fought in message boards or on spec sheets. You can have assets that on paper have impressive capabilities, but if you (like Russia) can't support, deploy, purchase in signifigant numbers, or train operators effectively you might as well not have that system. On paper, some system from the rest of the world appear to be better than similar US systems (for example Russia has a few copies of larger cargo planes), but no one can compare with the US's ability to utilize the available systems to achieve their goals.


I completely agree, although. Economically, and I'm glad to inform you all of this, the US is going to crumble. We have seen numerous shifts of countries' putting their forign investments into the Euro dollars. China has announced that they won't do such thing, but that shal meerely slow down the whole process.
So, concernning this issue, in the end America will be in a worse off position that Russia, with the same problem, yet no new designs on paper.
Russia does make its designs. Russia has numeroud top secret bases on its area, with numerous top secret projects in them...



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
Delivwasp, you keep mentioning the superior training of the UK based on the Falkland conflict.

That is major war we took in and shows how well we put it to good use , and the lessons we learned

Also shows where the tech failed and our crews training and calibre over came those problems.



Is it that suprising that a major European power using good (for the time) multi-role fighters were able to at least supress a 3rd world country using outdated French aircraft? They did after all shoot down 2 Mirage IIIE's without loosing an aircraft...

Umm put it this way on paper the mirages should have kicked our asses.
The harrier isnt really an A2A fighter.
The mirage is better at A2A than the harrier is.



Or did other UK victories impress you, such as sinking an Argentinian vessle (using WWII torpedoes, the vessel itself was a survivor of Pearl Harbor). Or the Royal Marines moderate success using US made amphibious landing craft? Or that the once great royal navy was able to survive a conflict with a 3rd world country while loosing only 5 ships, including an aircraft carrier?

Um firstly there where two carriers in the falklands, both sailed home.
Hell one i have pictures of only 6 months old still in service, the other was selt to india.
The RN lost 2 ships, the third ship was town out and sunk after the war but did not sink during the conlfict and was sunk by the RN.

Also what argentian ships do you mean?
The RM had a very good sucess including the first ever capture and sinking of a ship from air.
But hey haveing moderete sucess with bad equipment can be exspected , know what i mean?



[edit on 8-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

I think assualting alfaw was important.
It was pure US need to take bagdad, they wanted to take it to show "yeah we took bagdad!"


I won't justify this statement with a response...


The mirages should have destroyed our sea harriers.
Also it was down to the pilots skill not the hardware.
The argentinains had french exorcet missiles , a good missile.
They had more troops i believe.


Argentina had just 10,000 troops defending the Falklands, with about another 10,000 making up their air and naval power. The British had 28,000 men. There wasn't even a comparison.

And Argentina didn't have anywhere near enough Mirages, or training, or experience, or anything else to compete with the British. You guys still suffered 230 casualties. That's about the number America suffered in the Gulf War against a massive Iraqi army.


Yeah, which sometimes isnt a good thing


It's not a good thing to get combat experience, and more practice?


You had the advantage nothing like the falklands.


The Iraqis had more tanks. They had more men. In the Falklands, the British had more men and more weapons.


Tanks are diffrent at the time tanks where dodgy.
Cavalry can go anywhere practically, tanks cant.


Tanks of WW2 were reliable, especially the ones the German's had. They fought in the deserts and harsh winters of Russia.

None of this has anything to do with the tactics, anyway. Germany using common sense and applying their tanks properly was the point. It wasn't anything original.


So now you think schools lie to you, gees do you ever trust ANYONE!
The germans used a type of attack AKA they derived it off that one style.


I didn't say books lied, I said they were vague. They didn't explain the military tactics actually used. I just know that my text books always said the same thing you were.

The Germans didn't just simply use speed. That's not the main point of the Blitzkrieg.


Yeah but against who?
You can put them through ones in certain areas, i mean the finnish can put people through arctic warfare more than anyone else.


Who cares who you've fought against when those you're fighting have never fought against anyone?


They could if they where on the defensive.
They stopped the russians.
A european task force could anihalte any US task force.


They stopped a poorly equipped, and poorly led Russian army.


They managed fine in the falklands, i dont think shooting an unarmed child through the head with a pistol is "streching" the rules.


No one complained about the British in the Falklands because they were viewed as the good guys. The Israelis are hated world over. The BBC prints a story on the Israeli military operations, its titled scores of Palestinians killed, and ignores that the Israelis are responding to somethign like a school bus being shot at.


No, but the raptor wont win a war for you


A good infantry weapon won't do it, either.


That is major war we took in and shows how well we put it to good use , and the lessons we learned


The Falklands won't be remembered half a century from now. It wasn't really major. The British had an overwhelming advantage.


Um firstly there where two carriers in the falklands, both sailed home.
Hell one i have pictures of only 6 months old still in service, the other was selt to india.
The RN lost 2 ships, the third ship was town out and sunk after the war but did not sink during the conlfict and was sunk by the RN


The RN lost 6 ships:


The war cost the UK 255 men, six ships (10 others were very badly damaged), thirty-four aircraft, and more than 1.6 billion pounds, but the campaign was considered a great victory for the United Kingdom.


Source - en.wikipedia.org...

Mishka

I completely agree, although. Economically, and I'm glad to inform you all of this, the US is going to crumble. We have seen numerous shifts of countries' putting their forign investments into the Euro dollars. China has announced that they won't do such thing, but that shal meerely slow down the whole process.
So, concernning this issue, in the end America will be in a worse off position that Russia, with the same problem, yet no new designs on paper.
Russia does make its designs. Russia has numeroud top secret bases on its area, with numerous top secret projects in them...


Yea, America's economy is about to collapse...I mean, we're seeing rapid economic growth, and only have 5% unemployment, but we're in huge trouble...

Russia can have all the super top secret projects it wants. It can't, and won't produce any of them. Russia has been reduced to begging nations like China and India to fund their projects, only so the Russians can end up exporting more then they keep for themselves.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I won't justify this statement with a response...

You complain we do no work and now you think we are uselss?



Argentina had just 10,000 troops defending the Falklands, with about another 10,000 making up their air and naval power. The British had 28,000 men. There wasn't even a comparison.

Overwhelming, and they had the advantage of defending.


And Argentina didn't have anywhere near enough Mirages, or training, or experience, or anything else to compete with the British. You guys still suffered 230 casualties. That's about the number America suffered in the Gulf War against a massive Iraqi army.

Uhh they did, they blew up two ships!
Put it this way they might have not been the best but if they had sunk the carrier we would have lost the war.



It's not a good thing to get combat experience, and more practice?

Not good to be involved in wars constantly.
Has a demoraliseing effect.



The Iraqis had more tanks. They had more men. In the Falklands, the British had more men and more weapons.

The iraqis had outdated tanks, they had out dated weapons.



Tanks of WW2 were reliable, especially the ones the German's had. They fought in the deserts and harsh winters of Russia.

Yeah and look how many where ruined in deserts and harsh winters of russia.


None of this has anything to do with the tactics, anyway. Germany using common sense and applying their tanks properly was the point. It wasn't anything original.

They way they used it and germany also invented storm troopers.
They have invented ways of adapting to any enemy.



I didn't say books lied, I said they were vague. They didn't explain the military tactics actually used. I just know that my text books always said the same thing you were.

What ,that the germans made a tactic by editing another tacitc.


The Germans didn't just simply use speed. That's not the main point of the Blitzkrieg.

The speed of it is important, the enemy has no time to react or has a chance of defense.



Who cares who you've fought against when those you're fighting have never fought against anyone?

It's no use fighting someone in mountains then fighting in the city, the tactics and mindset are totaly diffrent.



They stopped a poorly equipped, and poorly led Russian army.

They stopped an overwhelming force.



No one complained about the British in the Falklands because they were viewed as the good guys. The Israelis are hated world over. The BBC prints a story on the Israeli military operations, its titled scores of Palestinians killed, and ignores that the Israelis are responding to somethign like a school bus being shot at.

No the story printed was of a young girl being shot then the officer walking over removeing his pistol and shooting the girl in the head. Tell me what exsactly is that defending?????



A good infantry weapon won't do it, either.

It will, the raptor can only hit targets it can see and can be shot down.
A rifle cant be shot down.



The Falklands won't be remembered half a century from now. It wasn't really major. The British had an overwhelming advantage.

The british showed they could still fight a war far from home.
It will be remembered, we will remember them.



The RN lost 6 ships:

No four where sunk. I can get a tape of one member of the former crew of one of those ships quite easily.
Two where RFA ships which are not part of the RN.

No aircraft carriers where hurt.

Many where injured but not destroyed.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

You complain we do no work and now you think we are uselss?


Well, my words are being twisted, but yea, that's basically the point.


Overwhelming, and they had the advantage of defending.


The Iraqis were defending, as well.


Uhh they did, they blew up two ships!
Put it this way they might have not been the best but if they had sunk the carrier we would have lost the war.


That's not making them look good, just you look bad.


Not good to be involved in wars constantly.
Has a demoraliseing effect.


Going out and winning wars is demoralizing...?


The iraqis had outdated tanks, they had out dated weapons.


They were using the same weapons as the Russians.


Yeah and look how many where ruined in deserts and harsh winters of russia.


Usually when you make a statement you have some proof to back it up. Well, a logical person does. You never back up anything you say.


They way they used it and germany also invented storm troopers.
They have invented ways of adapting to any enemy.


They only fought the same few nations over and over.


What ,that the germans made a tactic by editing another tacitc


They did what good armies throughout history have done, but they didn't do it as good. They didn't do anything spectacular.


It's no use fighting someone in mountains then fighting in the city, the tactics and mindset are totaly diffrent


America has fought in mountains. I guess people forget about Afghanistan.


They stopped an overwhelming force.


The Russians were anything but overwhelming. That was Russia's war to win or lose.


No the story printed was of a young girl being shot then the officer walking over removeing his pistol and shooting the girl in the head. Tell me what exsactly is that defending?????


I wasn't talking about this specific story, but I have read about this one. It's hardly as simple as people like to make it. It's also the action of a single soldier.


It will, the raptor can only hit targets it can see and can be shot down.
A rifle cant be shot down.


A Raptor can kill hundreds of men at once.


The british showed they could still fight a war far from home.
It will be remembered, we will remember them.


Yea, with some major help from America...


No four where sunk. I can get a tape of one member of the former crew of one of those ships quite easily.
Two where RFA ships which are not part of the RN.


I'll go with Wikipedia which says 6 ships were lost.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Oh sweet Jesus, another X beats Y thread. Hope this doesn't escalate to the amount of answers similar to China Vs Taiwan.

The situations proposed in this thread would most likely not happen and when I say most likely I mean 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Oh sweet Jesus, another X beats Y thread. Hope this doesn't escalate to the amount of answers similar to China Vs Taiwan.
Not quite I suggested a second Russian civil war but no one had
any opinions on the matter.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Well, my words are being twisted, but yea, that's basically the point.

Thanks.
Next time cut the bovine excriment ok?
Also we done a lot more than other counties done, we stuck by our ally i dont like it but thats the way it is.


The Iraqis were defending, as well.

Iraqi's didnt have exercet missiles from mirages based outside the conflict zone.


That's not making them look good, just you look bad.

No, the RN wasnt exspecting them to have those weapons.
Another intel blunder.


Going out and winning wars is demoralizing...?

Going out and getting men shot everyday fighting in a country no ones heard of or cared about fighting for a people that dont want your help is demoralizing.
Hell you could go win the war in iraq by carpet bombing every city, but what effects that going to have on the troops?


They were using the same weapons as the Russians.

T-55's and T62's are not the same as the T-80.



Usually when you make a statement you have some proof to back it up. Well, a logical person does. You never back up anything you say.

Because mabye if you did look up the war you would notice the german advance was severly hindered by the russian winter.


Its complex suspension wheels system, designed to carry its heavy weight, could get stuck with stones and even with mud, a severe problem for a tank. This was particularly severe in the russian winter, where frozen mud totally immobilized Tigers during the night, making them sitting ducks in the morning, when the russians attacked. It also had two sets of tracks, one for roads and one for the field and combat, an even greater complexity.


From source www.2worldwar2.com...


They only fought the same few nations over and over.
[/qupte]
So?
They fought the major powers of the world and actually they fought people from around the globe.


They did what good armies throughout history have done, but they didn't do it as good. They didn't do anything spectacular.

At the time the tactics where fantastic , you might not think so but they done a damm fine job.



America has fought in mountains. I guess people forget about Afghanistan.

Yeah and i suppose afghan mountains have a minus 5 degree winter?


The Russians were anything but overwhelming. That was Russia's war to win or lose.

Russia was trying to invade with a massive army compared to the finnish.



I wasn't talking about this specific story, but I have read about this one. It's hardly as simple as people like to make it. It's also the action of a single soldier.

One serving officer sets the exsample.
Yeah, we have faced stuff like this before as well.
The eyes of the world are on you , you cant be as trigger happy as you want.



A Raptor can kill hundreds of men at once.

It cannot!
It has a limited payload, now in what kind of war is it going to get over 100 kills in one sorte.



Yea, with some major help from America...

BS!
You gave one missile that was it!
Hell that asscension island in the atlantic belongs to us you just use it out of freindship!



I'll go with Wikipedia which says 6 ships were lost.

I'll go with the names of the ships losr

I think the RN and the RFA know a bit more than Wikipedia .

[edit on 9-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Iraqi's didnt have exercet missiles from mirages based outside the conflict zone.


Iraq had advanced Russian SAM's and scuds. That's a lot more dangerous than anything Argentina had. OH, Iraq did have EXOCET missiles, as well.


Going out and getting men shot everyday fighting in a country no ones heard of or cared about fighting for a people that dont want your help is demoralizing.
Hell you could go win the war in iraq by carpet bombing every city, but what effects that going to have on the troops?


You know, anytime they've studied troop morale in Iraq, it's been the same as the beginning of the war, or higher. Kind of disproves your theory, doesn't it?


T-55's and T62's are not the same as the T-80


The Russians had a few hundred T-80's. They still relied heavily on the T-72, which the Iraqis used. And that T-80 is reallly just an improved T-72. It isn't a big step-up.


Because mabye if you did look up the war you would notice the german advance was severly hindered by the russian winter.


That was a lack of supplies, not tanks failing in the winter.

Your little quote talks about them getting stuck in the mud at night during a Russian winter. You know, tanks get stuck in Iraq today. And the same happens to cavalry under muddy, wet conditions. Want an example? The Hydapses. Monsoon rains kept Alexander's cavalry out of much of the battle.


They fought the major powers of the world and actually they fought people from around the globe.


The Germans fought Russians, French, and British. None of them were military super powers. There wasn't much of a rival for the Germans. Nothing they did was really new.


At the time the tactics where fantastic , you might not think so but they done a damm fine job.


I never said they didn't work, just that they weren't so original. The Germans weren't brilliant to simply use tanks effectively.


Yeah and i suppose afghan mountains have a minus 5 degree winter?


The mountains of Afghanistan get extremely cold.


Russia was trying to invade with a massive army compared to the finnish.


They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and had no real leadership.


One serving officer sets the exsample.
Yeah, we have faced stuff like this before as well.
The eyes of the world are on you , you cant be as trigger happy as you want.


While you live in a fantasy world of rhetoric, I'll take reality.


It cannot!
It has a limited payload, now in what kind of war is it going to get over 100 kills in one sorte.


Attacking a mass of enemy troops? A bomb gives off kind of a big explosion, and can kill anything within a large range. A massed army would be extremely vulnerable.


BS!
You gave one missile that was it!
Hell that asscension island in the atlantic belongs to us you just use it out of freindship!


That island was under our control at the time. Those missiles were a big reason for beating those Mirages. We gave intelligence. We may have even given an aircraft carrier.


I'll go with the names of the ships losr
I think the RN and the RFA know a bit more than Wikipedia


The RFA does know more, but you don't.

[edit on 9-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iraq had advanced Russian SAM's and scuds. That's a lot more dangerous than anything Argentina had.

Lets see...
SAM, takes out 1 jet = 1 man possibly dead or MIA. Bad
Exocet missile , takes out 1 ship= 200+ dead or MIA.
You do the maths.



You know, anytime they've studied troop morale in Iraq, it's been the same as the beginning of the war, or higher. Kind of disproves your theory, doesn't it?

That is because the troops believe in the war on terror because of 9/11 , how do you think the morale generally before 9/11? Bad, they had been fighting everyone for no reason.



The Russians had a few hundred T-80's. They still relied heavily on the T-72, which the Iraqis used. And that T-80 is reallly just an improved T-72. It isn't a big step-up.

The iraqi's T-72's had to be hand cranked.
They didnt have sights on them ethier.
Much bigger diffrence than the T-80 and the russian T-72.




That was a lack of supplies, not tanks failing in the winter.

The lack of supplies was due to the winter, trucks failed planes failed troops where too cold.


Your little quote talks about them getting stuck in the mud at night during a Russian winter. You know, tanks get stuck in Iraq today. And the same happens to cavalry under muddy, wet conditions. Want an example? The Hydapses. Monsoon rains kept Alexander's cavalry out of much of the battle.

Not to the same exstent.
You dont see the 7th cav haveing to stop to help 4 or 5 tanks out of the mud.



The Germans fought Russians, French, and British. None of them were military super powers. There wasn't much of a rival for the Germans. Nothing they did was really new.

Uh let me see, austrialians, indians,americans (only briefly.) and many from commonwealth countries.
Oh BTW during WW1 the RN was the largest and strongest fleet in the world.
Nothing could beat them.



I never said they didn't work, just that they weren't so original. The Germans weren't brilliant to simply use tanks effectively.

At the time tanks where new, they thought up new ways to use them.
May seem "simple" to you now after decades of research and decades of battle testing but then it was revolutionary.



The mountains of Afghanistan get extremely cold.

Not as bad as the winter in finland.



They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and had no real leadership.

So?
The army was larger and had technological superiority over the defenders.



While you live in a fantasy world of rhetoric, I'll take reality.

Your realitly is not the same as mine, you can live there.
What you believe is true is true to you.



Attacking a mass of enemy troops? A bomb gives off kind of a big explosion, and can kill anything within a large range. A massed army would be extremely vulnerable.

IN WHAT WAR SITUATION???
Heres a clue,with every modern army there are SAM's there are anti air defenses.
Your precios little plane would be destroyed.
A raptor costs millions, and millions more to keep operational.
A rifle costs little, little to run, little to keep it operational.



That island was under our control at the time. Those missiles were a big reason for beating those Mirages. We gave intelligence. We may have even given an aircraft carrier.

No you gave no such carrier.
Ah, misread, you did own the island but that was it.
I want proof of intel being supplied since the US said it had a non intereferance policy in the conflict.



The RFA does know more, but you don't.

Really?
Dont think so, the RFA is a civilain organisation that supplies the RN and is run by civilian crews nothing more.
No RN crews just civi crews.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Lets see...
SAM, takes out 1 jet = 1 man possibly dead or MIA. Bad
Exocet missile , takes out 1 ship= 200+ dead or MIA.
You do the maths.


You can keep the ignorant view all you want. It doesn't matter much. Iraq had the same Exocet missiles.


That is because the troops believe in the war on terror because of 9/11 , how do you think the morale generally before 9/11? Bad, they had been fighting everyone for no reason.


The morale was good before 9/11.


The iraqi's T-72's had to be hand cranked.
They didnt have sights on them ethier.
Much bigger diffrence than the T-80 and the russian T-72.


Once again, you haven't proven this statement anytime you've said it.


The lack of supplies was due to the winter, trucks failed planes failed troops where too cold.


The lack of supplies was due to Russians disrupting German supply lines. The Germans were cold because they didn't bring any supplies for winter.


Not to the same exstent.
You dont see the 7th cav haveing to stop to help 4 or 5 tanks out of the mud.


Cavalry couldn't be used at all, while only a few tanks get stuck.


Uh let me see, austrialians, indians,americans (only briefly.) and many from commonwealth countries.
Oh BTW during WW1 the RN was the largest and strongest fleet in the world.
Nothing could beat them.


The Commonwealth countries had no real military strength, and didn't do much fighting against Germans.


At the time tanks where new, they thought up new ways to use them.
May seem "simple" to you now after decades of research and decades of battle testing but then it was revolutionary


By WW2 tanks weren't all that new, and the Germans weren't the only ones with the idea. They also had a few chances to test out their tactics before WW2.


So?
The army was larger and had technological superiority over the defenders.


There was no technological superiority. And an army with no leadership is as good as done, anyway.


Your realitly is not the same as mine, you can live there.
What you believe is true is true to you.


It's true to me, world leaders, and those actually fighting our wars.


IN WHAT WAR SITUATION???
Heres a clue,with every modern army there are SAM's there are anti air defenses.
Your precios little plane would be destroyed.
A raptor costs millions, and millions more to keep operational.
A rifle costs little, little to run, little to keep it operational.


I don't care to argue on the effectiveness of SAM's again. I already really won that. My scenario was during a ground war. No one goes to fight a ground war with an enemy that still has strong air defenses remaining.


No you gave no such carrier.
Ah, misread, you did own the island but that was it.
I want proof of intel being supplied since the US said it had a non intereferance policy in the conflict.


Everything I said was in the Wikipedia article I already posted.


Really?
Dont think so, the RFA is a civilain organisation that supplies the RN and is run by civilian crews nothing more.
No RN crews just civi crews.


Yea, but that doesn't mean you're right. You're information hasn't been backed up by anything.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The Commonwealth countries had no real military strength, and didn't do much fighting against Germans.



Why do say htings about you really don't know squat about??...For starters more than 65,000 Indians died to protect small belgian town from falling to nazi onslaught



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
ok lets stay 2 the point. There was a time when Germany was the best. U just cant deny that. but again when you have rest of the planet against you, i say we r dead. But today, yes the US is the king. But even they have issues. I've read it on many forums that US has taken a beating. there was one which i remember where an old diesel-electeric sub from canada (i'm not so sure which country) sunk a US aircraft-carrier in a training excercise. Also must be rememmbered that hitler ran out of patience, ow he would have destroyed(not beaten) britian. But yes there was a time when the sun never set on the british empire. Both of these countries have been stupendous in human history & development.
Now as far as russia & china is concerned? i say russia.
Yes china does have more men but it all boils down to how good they are?
(during indo-sino warof 1962 indians had a kill ratio of 6 to 1 against PLA, in highly unfavourable conditions.) Also you just cannot say that any country is bad at defending or fighting, coz every human loves their home and anyone would go to any limit for it.
Russia has more tanks. Also they wouldnt give the best to China or anybody.
Navy >> Russia wins hands down. Coz china is still not a true Blue-water navy. Russia is. also they have aircraft carriers.
AirForce >> Russia has the bigger AF. Also PLAAF use Mig-19s.
Also wont the SAMs play an important role? I mean the S-300? what chance does anyaircraft has?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can keep the ignorant view all you want. It doesn't matter much. Iraq had the same Exocet missiles.

Did the royal navy have an aegis cruiser defending it?
Or 80+ planes?



The morale was good before 9/11.

Not really, you had been fighting wars for what the last 60 years?



Once again, you haven't proven this statement anytime you've said it.


The lack of supplies was due to Russians disrupting German supply lines. The Germans were cold because they didn't bring any supplies for winter.

Yeah and the fact their tanks where not designed for that kind of climate.
The Fact that germans didnt bring any good coats is a point.



Cavalry couldn't be used at all, while only a few tanks get stuck.

Depends.
A river can stop tanks just like cavalry, a forest can stop cavalry and tanks.



The Commonwealth countries had no real military strength, and didn't do much fighting against Germans.

As the man downstairs says!
Btw the common wealth countrys include india which is considered a very strong power and always has been.



By WW2 tanks weren't all that new, and the Germans weren't the only ones with the idea. They also had a few chances to test out their tactics before WW2.

Yeah battle testing and reinventing ideas.
The tanks then where new by military tech standards.
The tech for some parts of the raptor is over 15 years old but yet the jet is "new".



There was no technological superiority. And an army with no leadership is as good as done, anyway.

If they wasnt any real leader ship then why did they take over the area for a short time?



It's true to me, world leaders, and those actually fighting our wars.

So you think, so you think.
Everyone is diffrent and unless you think everyone shares your views and you are always correct then your statement is an arogant one.



I don't care to argue on the effectiveness of SAM's again. I already really won that.

I think its called a stalemate since we could provide no proof showing where the best sams went up against the best planes.


My scenario was during a ground war. No one goes to fight a ground war with an enemy that still has strong air defenses remaining.

I seem to think you see air as the key to victory yes no?
Air is one area, you could have hundreds if not thousands of airplanes but no ground troops and lose the war.
Remember even the best planes can be shot down, if not they wouldnt equip them with chaff.
In your "scenario" i am guessing that it was a great WW1 style infantry assault...only way i see it possible for one plane to kill hundreds.



Everything I said was in the Wikipedia article I already posted.


May i point out one thing to you , "Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base."
From your article.

The US gave one missile type.
The US did supply intel it seems but one thing "There were also rumours" is the main part infront of the aircraft bit.
Just rumors nothing more.



Yea, but that doesn't mean you're right. You're information hasn't been backed up by anything.


5 RN ships lost.
1 RFA ship the RFA SIR GALAHAD was damaged and then sunk after the war.
The container ship ATLANTIC CONVEYOR was damaged and sunk under tow, though not an actual combat ship.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mishka

Originally posted by BJonesLHS

Originally posted by Starwars51
Okay, so this board seems to be full of people who are certain that both of these countries are superior to the US military - so the logical next question is, which would prevail?

They share a massive border, so extensive ground combat is likely - as well as some sort of nuclear exchange.

Do you think other countries would intervene on one side or another?

Who (given the ever deteriorating state of Russia's convential forces) has the best ground/air forces?

Please, share your thoughts....



Okay, first of all, I'm going to disagree with your first statement that you have made. Yeah, people believe that these two countries are superior to the United States Military, but they are not! The United States has the best military, technology, and weaponry than any other country on this Earth as far as our intelligence can view. The only reason China may be in one's head is because of the massive number of citizens China has. Today, China has approximately 380,000,000 available military manpower. That is approximately 100,000,000 more than the United States' overall population and about 306,000,000 more than the United States' military manpower. However, the United States will not risk the lives of millions of troops in such of a massive army war with China if we do have war with them. Most of all, we will be using missiles and top secret weaponry to fight the Chinese. You are talking about nuclear missiles, rockets, sub-launched cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, possibly biological weapons, and our top secret weaponry will come to use duirng this time.

According to Russia, if you have forgotten, the Soviet Union has broken up in the early 90's and it's been over 10 years that Russia has been a sitting-duck. They still remain with a minute number of power, but they aren't as much as a superpower as they were before the Soviet Union crumbled. Today, Russia has approximately 40,000,000 available military manpower. And knowing Russia, they may have a different tactic in pursuing the Chinese. Since they are close in border, the Chinese will end up storming onto the Russian territory and fighting. So they would have no choice, but fight using troops. In regards to the Russian troops, they will get completely whiped out if they decided to enter the Chinese territory of vice versa. But more than likely, there will be troops fighting a war between Russia and China. As I have said early in this post, the United States will take a different approach in a war like that. Again, they the U.S. will use missiles and firepower more than they would be risking the lives of military troops.

In this case, there would be several of countries to intervene and support the the Russians. But again, you are talking about competing against a massive amount of soldiers if you have a ground war with the Chinese.

According to the two nations Russia and China, in regards to ground forces, I have already mentioned that China is approsimately 380 million strong in ground forces. That includes their Army, Navy, and airpower. In regards to airpower, the Russians have a fairly strong airforce, but again, the Soviet Union broke up over ten years ago and it caused Russia to get weak and not as strong as they used to be in the past. But, knowing the size of the Chinese military, they may also out-number Russia's airforce as well. But again, Russia cannot stand a chance against China's army since they share a massive border. But in regards to the United States who is the strongest superpower on Earth will take a different approach to fighting China and that will be using weapons of mass destruction.





Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.

I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.



What I'd first like you to do is hand over what you are smoking. How in the world would one prove what top secret weapons the United Staates has? They would not reveal that information. Why do you think they call it TOP SECRET? It's a secret from mainly the enemy. Okay, if you want one, the atomic bomb! That was on our of top secret wepaons before we used it. There was something called the Manhattan Project which proposed the secret information on the bomb itself. If you want proof, then go ahead and start a war with the United States. You will get your proof and hell to pay along with it.

I keep telling you all that Russia has brokekn up and thus they have lost power and were not as strong as they used to be in the past. China, once again has a strong army for they are a large number. But that doesn't make them strong because of the large number. Like I said, an easy target on China is to launch a missile right on top of the troops and they will be entirely whiped out completely! As I have also said to you, the United States will be using MISSILES!!! We will not risk the fact of placing troops on the Chinese territory. It's not feasible and it's at a high risk. But let's not forget what other choices the U.S. has which is the airforce, navy, missiles, etc. You are not understanding...thus it makes you a confused attorney! The United States has ballistic misisles as well as anti-ballistic misisles. What do you mean the United States does not have enough missiles? What source did you get that information from? Prove that! Also prove how Russia is the country who you claim is holding our country at bay in conquering the world. I have already told you that we have the capability in conquering the world. How can Russia of all countires currently conquer the world? They have lost power since the break up of the Soviet Union. With Chechnya causing them problems, they have a war to solve there before they can even think about attacking the United States. If they cannot beat the Chechens that well, what makes you think they can match the Americans? That would be second to none!

What proof do you have that the U.S. does not have enough superior weapons to China? Why do you think we have top secret weapons? Again, they are weapons or technology that has not been used in war as of yet and will not be used unless we fill it;s necessary to use it. Back to Japan...The Japanese just would not stop fighting. And we did warn them that if they do not stop fighting, the U.S. will hit you with something big that the world has never seen before. Thus, they continued and we had to prove to them twice that we are in control and in power. We will do the same for China and embarass them! We will blow China off of the map!! They will eventually quit as Japan has done...who would be dumb enough to lose such a large population due to nuclear weapons? We keep hitting them, they can and will be the least populated country!

A strong country or superpwr consists of four main things. They need an army, navy, airforce, and nuclear weapons. If you are missing one of these, you are NOT a match for the United States. Thus as I have stated in a previous post, China does not have a superior navy. With that missing, that can cause them the war. And it will! The U.S. will have SLCM's and start targetting areas on the Chinese territory. What you need to do is read up on Rules of Land Warfare and get a clue to what will go on in respects to what the United States will do in a result to a sitaution that may happen. This may answer some of your questions and correct your assumtions!



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either!

Yeah great nation, last time i checked you held the worlds worst FF record.
What a history.




Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!

Ok, the US navy has ALWAYS been beaten by the russians in antiship missiles FACT.
Germany has up till ww2 had the best trained army in the world, now we've taken thier spot due to thier low army number but if they beat us then we wouldnt be down heartned.
Germany has always been able to make superior guns to every one in the world.
Russian's have always been undertrained but after WW2 they had the best field rifles.: AK series.
The gurkhas have always been one of the best if not the best trained troops in the world, train the SAS stuff and their own stuff.



Devilwasp, know before you make yourself look like an idiot, for your informaiton, the Swedish provided many countries weapons during WW2. They played a neutral role and provided coutnries with weapons. Germany made their own weapons, sure...but the Swedish made a bigger profit with selling weapons.


What do you mean the Russians have beaten the US in naval weapnory? That doesn't make any sense. That's bull. There is no country that out-ranks the United States' technology in any military field. I don't care what you say. And especially in the Navy. Furthermore, that has never been proven. And if it was, Russia would not stand a chance in compeiting the U.S. navy. You need to rewrite your opinions, for it is backwards!

Again, get off of the past and talk about what you have in front of you. There may have been a possibilty that Russia may have been stronger than the U.S., but you need to look at today! Right now, the Russians are out of power as they used to be. They have broken up and the Soviet Union has fallen! That has caused Russia to lose power and rankings of their power. Thay cannot match the United States today!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, know before you make yourself look like an idiot, for your informaiton, the Swedish provided many countries weapons during WW2. They played a neutral role and provided coutnries with weapons. Germany made their own weapons, sure...but the Swedish made a bigger profit with selling weapons.

The point of your information is??
How would i look like an idiot for NOT saying that sweeden provided countries with tech and info?



What do you mean the Russians have beaten the US in naval weapnory? That doesn't make any sense. That's bull. There is no country that out-ranks the United States' technology in any military field. I don't care what you say. And especially in the Navy. Furthermore, that has never been proven. And if it was, Russia would not stand a chance in compeiting the U.S. navy. You need to rewrite your opinions, for it is backwards!

The US navy has always had a tech advantage over the USSR so the russians changed thier tactics from meeting them ship for ship to getting better tech in the areas the US navy wasnt the best at. Specifically anti ship missiles. The current Us navy defense is the phalanx , supposedly being replaced by metalstorm weapons (which are really cool) and point laser defesnse weapons but they might not give the US a total adantage over missiles.

The SSN-22 Sunburn missile most advanced and the best anti ship missile in the world, currently there is no defense against it since the reaction time needed would have to be less than 30 seconds and the phalanx cannon ,the US navy's main anti missile defense cannot plot a fireing solution and fire off rounds to destroy it in less than 30 seconds.



Again, get off of the past and talk about what you have in front of you. There may have been a possibilty that Russia may have been stronger than the U.S., but you need to look at today! Right now, the Russians are out of power as they used to be. They have broken up and the Soviet Union has fallen! That has caused Russia to lose power and rankings of their power. Thay cannot match the United States today!

I am saying that the russians are ahead in some fields they are no where near a match for the US , right now, but mabye after they pick themselves up they will be a match.
The past also teaches us lessons of what is to come....



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, know before you make yourself look like an idiot, for your informaiton, the Swedish provided many countries weapons during WW2. They played a neutral role and provided coutnries with weapons. Germany made their own weapons, sure...but the Swedish made a bigger profit with selling weapons.

The point of your information is??
How would i look like an idiot for NOT saying that sweeden provided countries with tech and info?



What do you mean the Russians have beaten the US in naval weapnory? That doesn't make any sense. That's bull. There is no country that out-ranks the United States' technology in any military field. I don't care what you say. And especially in the Navy. Furthermore, that has never been proven. And if it was, Russia would not stand a chance in compeiting the U.S. navy. You need to rewrite your opinions, for it is backwards!

The US navy has always had a tech advantage over the USSR so the russians changed thier tactics from meeting them ship for ship to getting better tech in the areas the US navy wasnt the best at. Specifically anti ship missiles. The current Us navy defense is the phalanx , supposedly being replaced by metalstorm weapons (which are really cool) and point laser defesnse weapons but they might not give the US a total adantage over missiles.

The SSN-22 Sunburn missile most advanced and the best anti ship missile in the world, currently there is no defense against it since the reaction time needed would have to be less than 30 seconds and the phalanx cannon ,the US navy's main anti missile defense cannot plot a fireing solution and fire off rounds to destroy it in less than 30 seconds.



Again, get off of the past and talk about what you have in front of you. There may have been a possibilty that Russia may have been stronger than the U.S., but you need to look at today! Right now, the Russians are out of power as they used to be. They have broken up and the Soviet Union has fallen! That has caused Russia to lose power and rankings of their power. Thay cannot match the United States today!

I am saying that the russians are ahead in some fields they are no where near a match for the US , right now, but mabye after they pick themselves up they will be a match.
The past also teaches us lessons of what is to come....


I am saying you're making yourself look like an idiot when you say the Germans supported the world with superior weapons. The Gemrans did not support the world. Germany was against the world that's why they started a war with everyone. As I have said, the Sewdish have supported the majority of countriesd and provided them with weaponry during WW2. That's all I'm saying to you.

I understand and compliment you on your knowledge of submarines and all. But I must tell you we have always had races and competitions with the Russians in the past. But many of them th U.S. has won because the U.S. has been prepaired and will remain that way in technology, tactics, and much more. Once again I must repeat myself, the Soviet Union has broken up for almost 15 years now. And they have lost the ability and capability in things that they used to have in the past and no longer can compete with the Americans. The Russians may have been better than the U.S., but in that case today, they have gone from first to worst! They have lost a large amount of power and they are most like ranked second maybe third with China in the way. The Russians have big problems of their own such as the Chechens which is a big competition to them. So again, if they cannot possibly do a good job against the Chechens, then what in your right mind makes you think they can compete the Americans? Think logically before you give an opinion!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join