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.

 

Germany's Awesome Power.

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by Wodan



The German army (called in German "Bundeswehr")


the german army is called "Heer"
german airforce is called "Luftwaffe"
german navy is called "Marine"

the german armed forces as a whole (these three parts plus an part for logistics, maintance and similiar non-combat stuff) are called "Bundeswehr"

When I was talking about the German army, I meant the WHOLE German armed forces. I know how the German land forces, air forces and the navy are called in German.


so I know tell you the correct terms:

army/land forces equals Heer
armed forces equals Armee


(Im englisch unterricht würde man den Begriff "army" nen Faux ami nennen, weil er dich auf die falsche Fährte bringt, weil es in deutschland nen ähnliches wort mit selbem ursprung gibt, dessen bedeutung aber inzwischen von der im englischen abweicht)




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The RAF and Navy are too strong for the Germans to invade Britain.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by soapydodger
The RAF and Navy are too strong for the Germans to invade Britain.


1. thought this discussion was ended now
2. royal airforce is equal to Luftwaffe, and navy.. well we have hydrogenium cell driven submarines and soon the Barracuda super cavitating torpedos, they will sink your fleet and not even be found byself

3. sorry for my comment in 2, as I want to stop that discusion as it wont lead to anything



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan

Originally posted by soapydodger
The RAF and Navy are too strong for the Germans to invade Britain.


1. thought this discussion was ended now
2. royal airforce is equal to Luftwaffe, and navy.. well we have hydrogenium cell driven submarines and soon the Barracuda super cavitating torpedos, they will sink your fleet and not even be found byself

3. sorry for my comment in 2, as I want to stop that discusion as it wont lead to anything



Is the "Barracuda super cavitating torpedos" real or some ones planned weapon?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
Is the "Barracuda super cavitating torpedos" real or some ones planned weapon?


It is doubtful whether the "Barracuda" is even out of concept phases. The only public news sources so far are a video game site and a popular (meaning tabloid) infotainment megazine. So its not acceptable to take equipment into consideration that hasnt even been invented yet and wont be deployed for at least 10 years to come.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by psteel
Is the "Barracuda super cavitating torpedos" real or some ones planned weapon?


It is doubtful whether the "Barracuda" is even out of concept phases. The only public news sources so far are a video game site and a popular (meaning tabloid) infotainment megazine. So its not acceptable to take equipment into consideration that hasnt even been invented yet and wont be deployed for at least 10 years to come.


the development goes on several years and there are prototypes so why do you tell this #?

@"tabloid" stop insulting this magazine or I will insult you.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan
the development goes on several years and there are prototypes so why do you tell this #?

@"tabloid" stop insulting this magazine or I will insult you.


1. Then go on, show me a source that is not from some future-worshipping site or magazine. There was a whole thread on this, and noone found any more evidence. Explain to me: if the technology really was advanced enough to be taken into consideration, wouldnt it create an international hurricane of interest? If it really had the capabilities that the present sources suggest this would be a revolution of naval warfare. It would be the biggest leap in naval technologies since nuclear powered vessels, because it would really change the way two fleets possibly engaged. So all this will happen without ANY dedicated media coverage?!?

2. I did not insult the magazine. But it IS inevitably an infotainment show and magazine. Have you ever seen a comparable statistic there? Have you ever seen a scientifically worthy discussion on the whole broadcasting company? "Tabloid" isnt necessarily an insult. It just means that it is not reliable for a technological discussion, since it doesnt transmit facts, it transmits opinions.

Besides, I could care less about you insulting me. You said you were 17... so I´ll not think any further about this lapsus.

[edit on 4/7/2005 by Lonestar24]

[edit on 4/7/2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
If Briatin does come under threat then Im sure we will kick in the old "our navy must be stronger than the next two put together."



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure Germany wouldn't be able to defeat britain and France conventionally, britain has the best special forces in the world [sas], my opinion as well as many leading militarists. Britain has the most up to date NATO tanks and aircraft along with a very well trained, traditionalist navy. That would be hard to beat.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
I'm pretty sure Germany wouldn't be able to defeat britain and France conventionally, britain has the best special forces in the world [sas], my opinion as well as many leading militarists. Britain has the most up to date NATO tanks and aircraft along with a very well trained, traditionalist navy. That would be hard to beat.


What about France. They've not been too good in the war front.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
If France was to take part then al that happens is that the 4th largest economy turns out heaps of military equipment, exhausts itself and acts as a barrier for Britain as it plans and uses it's well trained military to defeat Germany, all France is there for is to act as cannon fodder, LOL I'm kidding.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
If France was to take part then al that happens is that the 4th largest economy turns out heaps of military equipment, exhausts itself and acts as a barrier for Britain as it plans and uses it's well trained military to defeat Germany, all France is there for is to act as cannon fodder, LOL I'm kidding.


I thought it was funny in WWII when after the French surrendered to the Germans and the UK took action. All French ships in British docks were impounded and the UK decided to sink a few French ships in an African dock, Morrocco or Algeria if memory serves me right, so that the Germans couldnt use them. There is still many a Frenchman alive today that hasnt fogiven Briatin for this.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Britain only did what it should of in that situaTION, WHAT WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? Lol it was funny but the French should realise that the English couldn't of just allowed the French fleet to come under Nazi control.

Somehow though I think that France would have a much better trained, equiped army then it did in both the world wars.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
Britain only did what it should of in that situaTION, WHAT WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? Lol it was funny but the French should realise that the English couldn't of just allowed the French fleet to come under Nazi control.

Somehow though I think that France would have a much better trained, equiped army then it did in both the world wars.


France especially in the first World War tried its best to make its army bigger than Germanys. This was done by introducing National Service at a younger age and for a longer period of time. It never did work. They were throwing out, more or less untrained soldiers, left right and centre to go over the top.

Mind you most of the other countries had the same idea. A steady flow of soldiers and a bit of patriotism was all that was needed to win a war back in those days. It wasnt till late on in WWI when armies introduced camoflage uniforms and steered away from uniforms of bright national colours.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Yes that is true. I think that now in real terms not a fantasy scenario like I made up before, that France and Germany are now staunch allies. The old hatreds are over and the two seem to be co-operating quite nicely.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
In a straight up fight between the UK and German ground forces with airsupport, the germans would win since they out number the british divisions about 7:2. The German combat equipment is every bit as good as the UK equipment and yes on paper UK troops are better trained. But Germans have always had better armor doctrin than any one in the world and history is littered with the bodies who have dangerously underestimated the germans in war.

If naval conflict is central to the fight, then the UK has solid advantage in this area [power projection etc].



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Well if like you said the battle was heavily reliant on Navies then Britain would have an advantage. So of course straight off Britain would have a great advantage. Tanks and men can't walk on water, Britain has a little secret weapon called the English channel. Germany would have to face the full might of the Royal Navy if she has any chance of using her advantages such as tanks and men.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
In a straight up fight between the UK and German ground forces with airsupport, the germans would win since they out number the british divisions about 7:2. The German combat equipment is every bit as good as the UK equipment and yes on paper UK troops are better trained. But Germans have always had better armor doctrin than any one in the world and history is littered with the bodies who have dangerously underestimated the germans in war.


Did you not read about the Battle Of Britain. History would repeat itself.


If naval conflict is central to the fight, then the UK has solid advantage in this area [power projection etc].


The Uk has the best navy in the world, no doubts about that.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uk_United
Well if like you said the battle was heavily reliant on Navies then Britain would have an advantage. So of course straight off Britain would have a great advantage. Tanks and men can't walk on water, Britain has a little secret weapon called the English channel. Germany would have to face the full might of the Royal Navy if she has any chance of using her advantages such as tanks and men.


Britain has nuclear weapons. Im not sure if Germany does.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Good point about the BAttle of Britain dodger. During ww2 the might of German blitzkreig failed to defeat a few AA guns and poorly equipped home guard. The British air force was outnumbered almost 20:1 at the start and yet they still won. So if today Britain has the best trained infantry and navy in the world along with some quality aircraft including the famous harrier jump jets I am most certain Britain would win.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join