Advertisement

by The First Awesocracy » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:18 am

by The Pope States » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:24 am

by Davishire2 » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:29 am

by American Island » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:30 am

by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm
The Soviet Technocracy wrote:Amerikians wrote:
Two for the price of one, mate. The original M-1 Abrams with all of it's crappy systems and computer problems and it's 105mm shell can annihilate an M-4 Sherman AND the T-34 right behind it. It's not that much to take out once you consider the advancement in armament, armor and power projection.
A Sherman Firefly, with a veteran crew of the European theatre v. An M1 Abrams crew fresh out of Knox and sitting on the Berlin Wall.
Yeah, the Sherman any day.

by Oterro » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:07 pm
Altamirus wrote:Oterro wrote:
English? You mean Indian and Scottish of course..
All three, you don't charge into grapeshot and except to live, it just doesn't happen that way, it was the antipersonnel ammo of it's day

by Novaeria » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:15 pm
(xD)
by Rain Rangers » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:06 am
The Soviet Technocracy wrote:Tappahannock wrote:
Do you know how rare the Firefly was, compared to the original Sherman? That, combined with other factors, leads me to side with the Abrams.
Ridiculous thing, depending on who you are: Conscription laws do not apply to women...yet.
That's not the point, though, is it? A veteran tank crew who knows what their machine can do will probably be able to beat a tank crew fresh out of armour school with no real combat experience.

by North Defese » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:34 pm
Rain Rangers wrote:The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
That's not the point, though, is it? A veteran tank crew who knows what their machine can do will probably be able to beat a tank crew fresh out of armour school with no real combat experience.
look at the shermans and stuart tanks they broke down alot they could out move a panzer but not a abrams the only tank that moves faster then a abrams is the m2 hellcat destoryer tank but a could still take it out cuz of a tech advantege

by Franca-Liria » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:44 pm

by Prussia-Denmark » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:53 pm
by Radictistan » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:05 pm

by Rain Rangers » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:08 am
North Defese wrote:Rain Rangers wrote:look at the shermans and stuart tanks they broke down alot they could out move a panzer but not a abrams the only tank that moves faster then a abrams is the m2 hellcat destoryer tank but a could still take it out cuz of a tech advantege
This isn't a debate thread. If you aren't making a post about your soldiers eating a sacred bowl of spagetti before every battle then get the hell off my lawn.

by Rain Rangers » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:10 am

by Bakakishtan » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:37 pm

by Bafuria » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:41 pm
New Nicksyllvania wrote:Altamirus wrote:and bikes aren't? Foldable bikes take up allot of space that could be used to carry ammo, food, ulitility, tents, spare clothes, small sanitation equipment, communication devices, batteries for said devices, repair and maintenance devices, etc. Also, APCs have the advantage of being able to carry more than one man and the ability to actually shoot well while using them.
A Mountain Bike allows a human to travel thirty miles an hour, through any sort of terrain, with no fuel expenditures, need for mechanical engineers, and learning how to ride a bike can be accomplished within an hour if they do not already know how. And can additionally increase the carrying capacity of the rider as they transfer their load unto the bike when riding.
And no, you obviously dismount and leave the bike behind when in combat. But in matters of strategic mobility the Bike is only surpassed by the Horse, and far cheaper.
Do not underestimate the mountain bike

by Astralsideria » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:44 pm

by The Soviet Technocracy » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:21 pm
The Parthians wrote:North Defese wrote:What measures, tactics, weapons, armour, etc, does your military use that is reasonable in context, but to the passerby would be completely insane?
In the Defesian air force, for example, planes are not equipped with ejection seats. If the plane malfunctions or is shot down over friendly territory, the only thing a pilot can do is pray to whatever Deity he things will help him survive a crash landing. This feature was taken out of aircraft on the justification that there can be no possibility of the enemy interrogating the pilot and wrenching out valuable information from him.
Standard operating procedure for taking a densely populated urban area involves heavy use of VX and other chemical weapons. Followed up by armor and dismounted infantry thrusts through wider streets, with regular use of thermobaric demolition charges to clear out sewers and buildings along the way. Usually results in the deaths of well over 90% of the civilian population which doesn't evacuate in the process.
We also use tactical nuclear artillery shells to tear open chunks of a front line to allow a mass armored breakthrough. It's even lulzier.

by Prydain Fawr » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:41 pm

by Kyraina » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:58 am
New Nicksyllvania wrote:Altamirus wrote:tend to would have to transfer the load back on again and bikes are only stable kept at the constant semi high speed which is also harder to do with all that equipment on which requires an even higher speed to remain stable and enumerates the soldiers ability to takes and use his equipment as efficiently in event of an ambush. Don't tell me about bikes, I've ridden plenty. Also transfering equipment to a inherently unstable carrying platform is a general no no, especially if the soldiers ride en formation.
Your Argument is invalid

by Helghast empire » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:05 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Arlandova, Carnadu, League of European Nations, North Korea Choson
Advertisement