American Dominance on the World Stage

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
your right, we need to change our energy from oil to hydrogen, no more dependence on mideast and unlimited power from here

yeah we dont need to we have the north sea next to us.




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   


By August 1914, Britain had 247,432 regular troops. About 120,000 of these were in the British Expeditionary Army and the rest were stationed abroad.By January 1916 over 2.6 million men had volunteered for the British Army .The British Army had 1.6 million men wounded during the First World War. Approximately 662,000 were killed and another 140,000 were recorded as missing, presumed dead. hmm so most of the "british army" was killed eh? the french army however, The structure and balance of the French Army changed during the war. By 1918 about 40% of all French troops on the Western Front were artillerymen. Increasing use of machine-guns, armoured cars and tanks also reduced the numbers in the infantry. The growing importance of the French Army Air Service also had an impact and whereas there were 1,5 million in the French infantry in June 1915, this dropped to 850,000 in 1918.


problem with the above is that you are drawing statistical conclusions from different points in time......plus your numbers are wrong.
2.5 million by the END of 1915, not 1916, so by the end of 1918, it would be far greater. Plus your casualty figures are for the END of the war, not up to 1915, so you are distorting facts. Let me point you to the Britsh national Army Museum website....


National Army Museum

Have a gander.... here is a quote, referring to your apparent conviction that the Americans won the war *sigh* :




Germanys attempt to break through had exhausted its army and the initiative passed back to the Allies. On 8 August General Sir Henry Rawlinsons 4th Army launched a major attack at Amiens against the salient created by the German offensive. Rawlinson used over 2,000 guns, 450 tanks and 1900 planes to support the attack by thirteen divisions. This time it was the German front that broke and by the end of the day 4th Army had advanced eight miles, taken 400 guns and12,000 prisoners. Amiens began the period known as the Hundred Days, a series of offensives along the line which drove the Germans back. Much use was made of the Australian and Canadian Corps in these attacks. On 26 September the British broke through the Hindenburg Line and on 29 September they successfully crossed the St Quentin canal. Over the next two months the British continued to drive the Germans back and when an armistice came into force on 11 November 1918, they were back at Mons. For the first time in its history the British Army had taken on and defeated the main body of the main enemy in a European war.


A million US troops? Seems to me as if they where outnumbered by the Brits who had mobilised by the end of 1918, over 5 million men.....

British numbers

Disput away my American Friend, but the numbers don't lie. It just happens you distorted them for you own benefit.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
i didnt distort #, i got that from a british site i believe WHY WOULD I WASTE TIME DISTORTING BNUMBERS MY HEAD HURTS JUST LOOKING AT ALL OF THAT,


so devil: "you wanna know why u lost so many men that day?
its because your "great military planners sent you tanks in 10 miles out to sea instead of 5.
also you didnt want our anti mine tanks. which slowed u down quite a bit.
also so what you had more men ? your 6 times as big as us.
we were better trained and lasted longer. ""

so what we had more men, what the fk, UR THE WON THAT STARTED THIS , im not trying to braga bout who had more men, ur trying to make a big stink about it and defending ur british honor or whatever, i madea statement and u go on , so i get the facts from a british site, dont patronize me about mine tanks and bs, i dont give a rats a hole ok? im telling u what i found and u were wrong, i dont care about who died more or what idiot general did what to whose tanks, OK? and back to the first statement, all that stuff i got from ww1 was from a BRITISH site, go check it out urself, dont hit me with paragrpahs of crap, i dont have the strength to read it, iw as jus in a hurricane which is why im replying so late, anyway.. this statement : The British Army had 1.6 million men wounded during the First World War. Approximately 662,000 were killed and another 140,000 were recorded as missing, presumed dead. was not a continuation from the last sentence, it was as of the end of the war... i believe

by the end of 1915, nearly 2.5 million men had enlisted, many into Pals Battalions, organised on a local basis THE END OF 1915! i said 1916, there is a slight diffference in the web page, jesus my site said by JAN 1916 GET A GRIP its two different websites! god.
""On battlefields dominated by the defensive power of artillery, barbed wire and the machine gun casualties were enormous and in January 1916, to maintain the size of the Army, the government introduced conscription with the Military Service Act.""

"" In 1918 the British Army was actually smaller than in 1917 ""

i didnt distort cr@p funny how its a british only site and it doesnt meantion the americans at all who had BUT By July 1918 there were over a million US soldiers in France. General John Pershing deployed US troops to help the French defend the Western Front during the 3rd Battle of the Aisne in May and at the Marne in June. US troops also took part in the Allied attacks at Le Hamel and Canal du Nord before Pershing launched his own offensive at St Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne.

More than 2 million troops eventually reached Europe but a large number arrived too late to see any action. so a large number of the total of 2 million didnt see battle but by 1918 in july there was already over a million troops there fighting, so maybe of the ones that arrived after july 1918, when there was a million already to 1918 they didint see battle. the usa was in the battles in Le Hamel , Canal du Nord and american offensives at St Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne! according to YOU: """Operation MICHAEL""" was the Big butt battle that destroyed Germany!? and it had no american aid, but look at this::: """Following the successful Amiens and Albert offensives Marshal Ferdinand Foch decided to order an attack at Meuse-Argonne in an attempt to cut-off the entire German Second Army. General John Pershing was given overall command of the operation and American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was given the main attacking role. Colonel George Marshall, had the difficult task of bringing 400,000 troops from the successful St Mihiel campaign to take part in the Meuse-Argonne offensive on 26th September, 1918.

The US First Army, led by General Hunter Liggett, used more than 300 tanks in the offensive. The advance was supported by General William Mitchell and 500 aircraft from the United States Air Service. Two-thirds of the soldiers involved in the advance had just arrived from St Mihiel and the exhausted troops only advanced 3km along a 64km front on the first day. Progress remained slow and the offensive eventually came to a halt on 30th September.

The Meuse-Argonne offensive was resumed on 4th October. The German Army, many suffering from the influenza epidemic, held on until 4th November when they began to retreat. Fresh US troops were moved to the front and had advanced 32km when the Armistice was announced.""" so it seems it was the usa and france involved in the demise of Germany! AND LOOK AT THAT : The AEF was given the main attacking role. WOW!!!!!!!!!!






posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
wow you really hate me. i would love to take credit for putting paraghs of reseatch against you but i cant cause i didn't it was stumason ,a good man, who got this information so YOU get your facts right.
also one thing i never said you had more men than us ,and if you dont care about how good your men where,hwo good your planners where,how many men died or what happened why are you even argueing hell i know america had more men i accept that BUT you planned everything like a bunch of amatuers.
so a thread entitled "american dominace world wide" isnt trying to brag? hmm mabye you should rethink this.
actually YOU said america done the most part of the war by filling up the war in france. YOU said you done the most part in a LARGE offensive. you done a large part in a SMALL offensive.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   


so what we had more men, what the fk, UR THE WON THAT STARTED THIS , im not trying to braga bout who had more men, ur trying to make a big stink about it and defending ur british honor or whatever, i madea statement and u go on , so i get the facts from a british site, dont patronize me about mine tanks and bs, i dont give a rats a hole ok? im telling u what i found and u were wrong, i dont care about who died more or what idiot general did what to whose tanks, OK? and back to the first statement, all that stuff i got from ww1 was from a BRITISH site, go check it out urself, dont hit me with paragrpahs of crap, i dont have the strength to read it, iw as jus in a hurricane which is why im replying so late, anyway.. this statement : The British Army had 1.6 million men wounded during the First World War. Approximately 662,000 were killed and another 140,000 were recorded as missing, presumed dead. was not a continuation from the last sentence, it was as of the end of the war... i believe


Dude, if you re-read your post, you did exactly what I said you did. Took figures for one point in time, and attempted to use them to prove another point that happened 3 years later.

Maybe it is your poor grammar, limited spelling ability and lack of punctuation, but that is what you said.

And stating that you do not have the strength to read what I posted disputing what you said, is arrogance in the extreme. I took the time to read what you posted. I also took the time to realise you had distorted the facts. if you wish to continue this discussion, then maybe you should read what others post, instead of blindly believing whatever you want and screw everybody else.

And it may well be from a British site, but I am inclined to believe an official Army website over any other when it comes to presenting facts about what they have got up too.

Cheers Devilwasp, thanks for the support dude. I agree that starting a thread announcing how great America was/is/is going to be and putting down the achievements, and in the case of WW2, outstanding bravery in the face of overwhelming odds of another country (especially one that has supported you no matter what), is exactly why people are pissed off with the US.

One word my friend....empathy.

If the US had even a shread of it, and attempted to put themselves in the position of others before steamrolling their way across the world, perhaps they would be the "greatest" country on earth and actually be liked by the population of said planet.....

[edit on 8-9-2004 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Oh poor little masterp, you are a fool, please educate yourself before you sound like an idiot (oh wait, it's too late for that)

Nobody can challenge the US in terms of air, land, or sea power, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Free palestinians, please kiddo, they're the chechans of Israel, they're bastards.

I have a question to ask you masterp, do you think George W. Bush lied?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   


Free palestinians, please kiddo, they're the chechans of Israel, they're bastards.

I have a question to ask you masterp, do you think George W. Bush lied?


Murdering civilians and especially kids is despicable and those who do it are scum. Yes this includes Palestinian extremists, but by god it includes the Israeli authorities too.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Oh poor little masterp, you are a fool, please educate yourself before you sound like an idiot (oh wait, it's too late for that)

masterp? who's that?


Nobody can challenge the US in terms of air, land, or sea power, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

thats cause you have so many troops
actually the chinese have a larger airforce. your army really is outnumbered by china but has the tech advantage.
your navy has only really the carriers over any one your ships are pretty standard tech. same with everyones ships nowaday's. your land troops though large are slightly under trained.


Free palestinians, please kiddo, they're the chechans of Israel, they're bastards.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. also as i remeber it the isreali mossad have the most sadist and ruthless reputation in the world.most of thier info gathering methods are not legal.


I have a question to ask you masterp, do you think George W. Bush lied?

as this is a question not directed to me i wont answer it.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
what happened on this thread!? after a first few post, it turned into a massive foul language hurling.

anyways heres my thoughts. US dominance on the world is pointless. it's like a king who rule the land but it have no citizens. US would be better off just pull their troops outta there and send in some real troops- special forces. if theres some agents like Sam in splinter cell, now it's the time.

aircraft wise, true no one can come close to challenge US. even our F-15's are far too superior for most countries' air force, not to mention the new F-22. but in nuclear arsenal, alot of countries are close up behind US. i remember china developed an ICBM that can achieve earth orbit, scary stuff.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2009


aircraft wise, true no one can come close to challenge US. even our F-15's are far too superior for most countries' air force, not to mention the new F-22. but in nuclear arsenal, alot of countries are close up behind US. i remember china developed an ICBM that can achieve earth orbit, scary stuff.

cough russia cough.
dont get ahead of your selfs the EF will be a match for the F15.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by 2009


aircraft wise, true no one can come close to challenge US. even our F-15's are far too superior for most countries' air force, not to mention the new F-22. but in nuclear arsenal, alot of countries are close up behind US. i remember china developed an ICBM that can achieve earth orbit, scary stuff.

cough russia cough.
dont get ahead of your selfs the EF will be a match for the F15.


I completely agree, the Eurofighter will be a match for the F-15, both have different advatages over each other. The Typhoon's advantages are, agility, smaller RCS, and it's much more fuel effiecient. While the Eagle has the advantage in radar, missiles, and speed. (But the F-15 has a radar signature of Rodan, so this could be a problem, but with ECM, maybe not.)

But as of right now, I would take an F-15C v(3) AESA over a Eurofighter.

And Russia's best deployed aircraft the Su-30K/MK/MKI, are generally more potent than an Eagle in the WVR arena (However, the AIM-9X has far better sensor arcs than deployed Russian missiles, so much of this advantage by the Su-30 is being offset with the introduction of the AIM-9X), but the Su-30's systems and missiles are unreliable, more so with missiles than with the systems. And not to mention it has a slightly larger radar signature than an F-15. I would definatley give the edge to the F-15 in BVR combat.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



[edit on 9-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by 2009


aircraft wise, true no one can come close to challenge US. even our F-15's are far too superior for most countries' air force, not to mention the new F-22. but in nuclear arsenal, alot of countries are close up behind US. i remember china developed an ICBM that can achieve earth orbit, scary stuff.

cough russia cough.
dont get ahead of your selfs the EF will be a match for the F15.


Agreed. The EF as an airframe is much superior to the F-15. It has a smaller RCS is more agile ect ect.

However, the Eagle does have better weapons and radar, so I would say they are about equal.

I am kind of shocked actually that the EF didn't employ more of a stealth design. Even if it was a first gen type equal to or around that of a F-117, that IMHO would have made it a "true" 5th gen fighter and given it a longer service life.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
rem its not really designed to be stealth,i think mabye they might make a stealth version. you know have a standard issue one thats a bit stealthy and get another thats really stealthy.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   


However, the Eagle does have better weapons and radar, so I would say they are about equal.

I am kind of shocked actually that the EF didn't employ more of a stealth design. Even if it was a first gen type equal to or around that of a F-117, that IMHO would have made it a "true" 5th gen fighter and given it a longer service life.


Well, Firstly I am far from convinced that the F-15 has better weapons or radar than the Typhoon, one glaring reason for this is that the UK would have bought the F-15 and had it in service much sooner with a big offset programme to boot. Anyone who thinks that the British would buy an inferior product merely to keep the technological and manufacturing base in this country alive seriously needs to do some reading up on the history of the British aerospace industry!

Secondly, by making the Typhoon the equivalent of the F-117 as suggested, it would mean that the aircraft was utterly incapable of fulfilling any of the requirements it was designed for.

RAF; "We would like to purchase a high tech supersonic agile BVR Interceptor and air superiority fighter, can you help?"

BAe; "Why yes! Here's the very thing! Its very high tech indeed AND stealthy, you forgot to ask for that!"

RAF; "Marvellous old chap, is it agile?"

BAe; "Er, no"

RAF; "Oh dear, never mind. Can it carry out BVR engagements?"

BAe; Er, no, because if it had an ai radar it wouldn't be, um, stealthy, like."

RAF; "Bugger, still, I suppose its very fast indeed, it certainly looks fast with all those sharp pointy bits!"

BAe; "Well, its funny you should mention that, Guv, You see................"




posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
waynos i was meaning changing the basic design your not going to send a stealth attack plane to destroy a fighter are you?



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
My little 'Only Fools...' pastiche was more in reply to the comment by American mad man and his reference to a 'first gen stealth, like the F-117'.

Actually the Typhoon is more stealthy than people realise. Obviously nowhere near as stealthy as the American types but it is the most stealthy fighter there is outside the USA. So far.



[edit on 9-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Waynos, just because the UK and the EU consortium chose not to buy the F-15 doesn't make it any more or less superior or inferior to the Typhoon. The EU consortium chose the program in 1983, while the F-15 is still getting upgrades to make it extremely formiddable with years to come.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
the tyhpoon will be upgraded and more or less be a replacement for the f-15



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the tyhpoon will be upgraded and more or less be a replacement for the f-15


Oh, I know, but it's upgrades for an "Eagle replacement" won't be until about 2010.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I take your point that the F-15 has been upgraded quite a lot since the decision was made. Yes, quite right.

I would just add that I wasn't talking about what Europe chose, they very much WOULD chose an aircraft for industrial reasons.

Also when the F-15 was being pitched to the UK and the outline performance of the "BAe ACA" was being discussed, I'm sure that various 'capability level versus cost' configurations were discussed. After all the upgrades are planned years in advance, just like the equipment for an all new fighter is, would you agree?

I probably come across a bit like I'm kicking the F-15, I assure you I am not. But it remains true that if the F-15 met all the operational (and financial) requirements of HMG then it would be in RAF service by now.

Of course choosing a new fighter isn't a straight comparison of how fast it is, how far it can 'see' etc. each country has its own particular needs and the best for one country might be a hindrance to the next guy. Not that the F-15 is a hindrance, of course, Im just making the point.

I would just add, 'cos Ive just remembered, that the decision of the RAF was that the 'homegrown' fighter was preferred, but if a US jet was to be bought then they chose the F-18L, which in the event was never actually built. The F-14 and F-15 were both too expensive while the F-15 also had some 'capability issues'. I do apologise here as I have no more information than that vague statrement. The F-16 was also considered but dismissed as 'nowhere' by the RAF.

PS I do believe that someone suggested joining the ATF but they were taken outside by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and shot


[edit on 9-9-2004 by waynos]

[edit on 9-9-2004 by waynos]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join