This is a thread meant to discuss people/nations/animals pitted against each other.
First topic, who do you think would win in a war between US and UK vs Russia and China?
Rules for this battle
1. No nukes
2. no other countries can help militarily in anyway
3. They start with current resources, military, economy etc
4. war is won whenever the other side surrenders
yo, what did the pirate say to the parrot? ... he said, ARRR you y- i'm a cracker..? ahem.. s-sorry.. i'm not.. uh.. very *good* with uh.. y'know jokes. I don't know .. um, yeah i guess i uh... will just give you a quote! yeah.. thats what i'll do.. a quote.. ahem.. here's the quote: "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
176 Replies
19 Jun 2016, 19:16
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
That is nonsense, every nation has Sams, however the Chinease Sams are inferior, and of smaller numbers.
The American Invasion, wouldnt come through there, although I wouldnt be surprised if the Chinese Set up defenses along there. The Americans, hate it or love it, are the best fighting force in the world, nobody is a match. Their ability to conduct full scale operations anywhere in the world, and conduct many operations at once, just proves their outstanding logistics, and strength. They would knock everybody out of the way, they could win no bother.
China is over rated, like they dont even have a central command, and every single part of their army is inferior to America. Every Branch of service is inferior to America, combined with the superior skill of American forces, and better expeneced Generals. The Chinese Army, haven't actually ever been in Combat, and havent been deployed in mass, since 1989..
You seem to forget two key points:
China has much more manpower
America cannot beat insurgents for their lives, literally. 15 years on and now hajji is bombing Europe.
Hahaha, you serious?
China has more Manpower, yes however they very unfit.
Their reserve forces, spent most of their time learning Communist and Marxist Propoganda, rather than learning to Fight, and China doesnt have the Logistics to support their army.
That makes no sense, just at all, that doesnt make any sense.
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
19 Jun 2016, 19:33
oceanhawk wrote:
China has more Manpower, yes however they very unfit.
You are saying Chinese civilians are unfit to fight the worlds fattest nation!? Are you an idiot!?
oceanhawk wrote:
Their reserve forces, spent most of their time learning Communist and Marxist Propoganda, rather than learning to Fight,
Really? Show me some sources.
oceanhawk wrote:
China doesnt have the Logistics to support their army.
That is ridiculous, how could they not do that when they have an economy growing so fast? Besides, the US would have trouble over most of Asia.
19 Jun 2016, 19:46
USA and UK.
They have a far superior technology in all aspects of war.
Combined their navies would dwarf the Russian and Chinese navies.
This may be out of date, but the world's largest air-force is the U.S air-force, and the second largest air-force is the U.S navy.
The U.S has a massive population willing and ready to go to war.
The U.S is home to the world's largest unofficial military (militia, gun-owners) that would be more than willing to die for their country.
In times of war, the U.S almost always bands together in support of the war effort turns into a massive industrial powerhouse.
The U.S has massive amounts of raw materials at their disposal and many military bases across the world.
Overall, the U.S and UK have the quantity and quality win just about any conflict.
19 Jun 2016, 19:51
Beff Stu wrote:
USA and UK.
They have a far superior technology in all aspects of war.
Combined their navies would dwarf the Russian and Chinese navies.
This may be out of date, but the world's largest air-force is the U.S air-force, and the second largest air-force is the U.S navy.
The U.S has a massive population willing and ready to go to war.
The U.S is home to the world's largest unofficial military (militia, gun-owners) that would be more than willing to die for their country.
In times of war, the U.S almost always bands together in support of the war effort turns into a massive industrial powerhouse.
The U.S has massive amounts of raw materials at their disposal and many military bases across the world.
Overall, the U.S and UK have the quantity and quality win just about any conflict.
US can't beat insurgents with mortars, HMG's and AK's even with all their fancy tech.
19 Jun 2016, 20:31
I've read through most of the pages on this thread and I can definitely say I agree with Quasi. No way could the British Army even think about an invasion of Russia, their tactics would have to be purely defensive. In recent years the British government have been slowly dismantling the British forces anyway.
19 Jun 2016, 20:46
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
China has more Manpower, yes however they very unfit.
You are saying Chinese civilians are unfit to fight the worlds fattest nation!? Are you an idiot!?
oceanhawk wrote:
Their reserve forces, spent most of their time learning Communist and Marxist Propoganda, rather than learning to Fight,
Really? Show me some sources.
oceanhawk wrote:
China doesnt have the Logistics to support their army.
That is ridiculous, how could they not do that when they have an economy growing so fast? Besides, the US would have trouble over most of Asia.
Are you thick? You think the American army, the best army in the world, is full of fat people, wow
Okay, gimme 2 secs, internet going slow..
Haha, fastest growing economy, because of foreign invest, very much so because of the US. Nike runners aint gonna make their army that great. They wont be able to catch up on American air superiority, naval domination, Ground Supremacy or the fact that the Americans are the most experienced fighting force on the planet
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
19 Jun 2016, 20:53
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
China has more Manpower, yes however they very unfit.
You are saying Chinese civilians are unfit to fight the worlds fattest nation!? Are you an idiot!?
oceanhawk wrote:
Their reserve forces, spent most of their time learning Communist and Marxist Propoganda, rather than learning to Fight,
Really? Show me some sources.
oceanhawk wrote:
China doesnt have the Logistics to support their army.
That is ridiculous, how could they not do that when they have an economy growing so fast? Besides, the US would have trouble over most of Asia.
2nd fattest nation! Besides, most of the obese people are above combat age.
Forum Gang Premier you are a balls
19 Jun 2016, 22:30
oceanhawk wrote:
Are you thick? You think the American army, the best army in the world, is full of fat people, wow
Are you thick? The American armed forces, at their current size, are too small for peace time duties. They say this themselves. So they would need more recruits but most of 'em are going to be fat. The UK is getting pretty large around the waist too nowadays.
oceanhawk wrote:
the fact that the Americans are the most experienced fighting force on the planet
Still lost in Vietnam. Americans can't defeat 'em if they can't see 'em.
GreatbigHippo wrote:
2nd fattest nation! Besides, most of the obese people are above combat age.
What is the fattest, and is this current combat age? If so, what is the combat age?
20 Jun 2016, 01:57
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Are you thick? You think the American army, the best army in the world, is full of fat people, wow
Are you thick? The American armed forces, at their current size, are too small for peace time duties. They say this themselves. So they would need more recruits but most of 'em are going to be fat. The UK is getting pretty large around the waist too nowadays.
oceanhawk wrote:
the fact that the Americans are the most experienced fighting force on the planet
Still lost in Vietnam. Americans can't defeat 'em if they can't see 'em.
GreatbigHippo wrote:
2nd fattest nation! Besides, most of the obese people are above combat age.
What is the fattest, and is this current combat age? If so, what is the combat age?
Fattest is Saudi Arabia. Combat age is pretty much everyone younger than 45 (at about that age the physical requirements of combat become impractical.)
Forum Gang Premier you are a balls
20 Jun 2016, 06:49
GreatbigHippo wrote:
Fattest is Saudi Arabia.
Lol.
GreatbigHippo wrote:
Combat age is pretty much everyone younger than 45 (at about that age the physical requirements of combat become impractical.)
Thanks.
20 Jun 2016, 13:22
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Are you thick? You think the American army, the best army in the world, is full of fat people, wow
Are you thick? The American armed forces, at their current size, are too small for peace time duties. They say this themselves. So they would need more recruits but most of 'em are going to be fat. The UK is getting pretty large around the waist too nowadays.
oceanhawk wrote:
the fact that the Americans are the most experienced fighting force on the planet
Still lost in Vietnam. Americans can't defeat 'em if they can't see 'em.
GreatbigHippo wrote:
2nd fattest nation! Besides, most of the obese people are above combat age.
What is the fattest, and is this current combat age? If so, what is the combat age?
Hahaha, China have continued lowering their standards of recruits. Because of failing tests.
China's defense budget, most of it actually goes to refiting old Equipment, because most of the troops are too big for the equpiment..
They didnt lose in Vietnam, They Left. It wasnt a War, it was an Intervention. You keep saying the Americans cant beat insurgency, when they can. They left Vietnam, they never gave it their all.
China havent fought a war, and Russia lost its war against insurgents
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
20 Jun 2016, 15:19
Quasi-duck wrote:
Still lost in Vietnam. Americans can't defeat 'em if they can't see 'em.
If you've seen the movie Apocalypse Now: Redux you will know what I mean with what I am about to say. If the Americans had really wanted to win the Vietnam war, and the government had not given a damn about public opinion, they would have won it.
The past is a foreign country.
20 Jun 2016, 16:32
oceanhawk wrote:
Hahaha, China have continued lowering their standards of recruits. Because of failing tests.
China's defense budget, most of it actually goes to refiting old Equipment, because most of the troops are too big for the equpiment..
Sources? I know this is lies, so I want to see what shady backwater article you can pull out of your behind. Besides, this must mean the US is really crap because they still use M16's and see China as a threat.
oceanhawk wrote:
They didnt lose in Vietnam, They Left. It wasnt a War, it was an Intervention.
So they intervened to stop South Vietnam becoming communist, failed, and left? Oh yeah, they didn't lose that one....
oceanhawk wrote:
You keep saying the Americans cant beat insurgency, when they can
Sources? Hajji is still out there and bigger than ever. Europe is under threat from the hajji's US can't defeat.
oceanhawk wrote:
Russia lost its war against insurgents
Actually, that was the USSR, so irrelevant since it is not the same country.
oceanhawk wrote:
China havent fought a war
Neither had Bohemia.
Pablo22510 wrote:
If you've seen the movie Apocalypse Now: Redux you will know what I mean with what I am about to say. If the Americans had really wanted to win the Vietnam war, and the government had not given a damn about public opinion, they would have won it.
So you're basing your facts off of fiction movies? Damn, good source. Not....
20 Jun 2016, 16:47
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Hahaha, China have continued lowering their standards of recruits. Because of failing tests.
China's defense budget, most of it actually goes to refiting old Equipment, because most of the troops are too big for the equpiment..
Sources? I know this is lies, so I want to see what shady backwater article you can pull out of your behind. Besides, this must mean the US is really crap because they still use M16's and see China as a threat.
oceanhawk wrote:
They didnt lose in Vietnam, They Left. It wasnt a War, it was an Intervention.
So they intervened to stop South Vietnam becoming communist, failed, and left? Oh yeah, they didn't lose that one....
oceanhawk wrote:
You keep saying the Americans cant beat insurgency, when they can
Sources? Hajji is still out there and bigger than ever. Europe is under threat from the hajji's US can't defeat.
oceanhawk wrote:
Russia lost its war against insurgents
Actually, that was the USSR, so irrelevant since it is not the same country.
oceanhawk wrote:
China havent fought a war
Neither had Bohemia.
Pablo22510 wrote:
If you've seen the movie Apocalypse Now: Redux you will know what I mean with what I am about to say. If the Americans had really wanted to win the Vietnam war, and the government had not given a damn about public opinion, they would have won it.
So you're basing your facts off of fiction movies? Damn, good source. Not....
No, I'm not. If you've seen the movie, which, judging from your reaction, I presume you haven't, there is a scene in which ex-colonel Walter E. Kurtz reveals his inner thoughts to the man he knows wants to assassinate him, Captain Willard. He recalls an incident in which he and a bunch of Green Berets give out vaccines in a local village, and when they return half an hour later, he sees how the VC have hacked off the right arm of anyone who's been vaccined. He comments on it and says, "If we really wanted to win the war, why don't we do that do?" I just mentioned it as an example. If the USA had really wanted to win the war, they could have easily done so.
The past is a foreign country.
20 Jun 2016, 17:15
Pablo22510 wrote:
If the USA had really wanted to win the war, they could have easily done so.
That would've just made everyone turn against the US.
20 Jun 2016, 17:58
Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
If the USA had really wanted to win the war, they could have easily done so.
That would've just made everyone turn against the US.
Not really. VC did it, and people supported them.
The past is a foreign country.
20 Jun 2016, 18:09
Pablo22510 wrote:
Not really. VC did it, and people supported them.
So if the US goes to another country and chops peoples arms off, they'll be happy with US forces and support them?
20 Jun 2016, 18:10
Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Not really. VC did it, and people supported them.
So if the US goes to another country and chops peoples arms off, they'll be happy with US forces and support them?
No, but they'll be scared out of their wits and will not do anything. Btw, I am NOT in favour of using these tactics.
The past is a foreign country.
20 Jun 2016, 18:13
Pablo22510 wrote:
No, but they'll be scared out of their wits and will not do anything. Btw, I am NOT in favour of using these tactics.
So your genius idea is give the enemy another reason to fight and commit actions that will worsen US international relations?
20 Jun 2016, 18:20
Pablo22510 wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Not really. VC did it, and people supported them.
So if the US goes to another country and chops peoples arms off, they'll be happy with US forces and support them?
No, but they'll be scared out of their wits and will not do anything. Btw, I am NOT in favour of using these tactics.
Exactly. Pablo, have you seen Braveheart? A perfect example of what could happen.
