Advertisement
by United Russian State » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:00 pm
by Paypilazhen » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:05 pm
by Aelosia » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:07 pm
by Kobrania » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:08 pm
by Rikese » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:27 pm
United Russian State wrote:Okay my French lover, let's clear up a fee things. Devdovshchina has gone down over the years by a very large percantage. It is not as common like it was during the Chechen wars. When moral is done it becomes a big problem. But it is not like Russia is the only country that has problems like this.
The goal is to streamline the armed forces down to a total of 1 million serving personnel of whom 150,000 will be officers by 2012.
In terms of absolute numbers reduction, that goal is already near completion. RIA Novosti said the armed forces had already been reduced from their high level of 4.5 million in the last years of the Soviet Union to only 1.2 million today. However, the envisaged reforms, as well as eliminating all NCOs, will slash the number of remaining officers by more than half from their current level of 310,000 to only 150,000.
and they whooped the Americans,
United Russian States wrote:Thrid Russia is moving towards an much larger force consiting of all volanteer soilders.
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:do you even expect for a minute i'd want to discuss anything further with you if you continue to show no respect to my opinions?
by Gauntleted Fist » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:11 pm
by A White Hawk » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:21 pm
Gauntleted Fist wrote:If it's technological, America.
If it's numbers, a toss-up between China or India.
If it's fighting spirit or sheer willingness to die for country, probably Russia. (Going from examples like WWII.)
by Gauntleted Fist » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Do you notice a slight difference there?CIA World Factbook wrote:India:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 237,042,868
females age 16-49: 243,276,310 (2009 est.)
United States:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 59,764,677
females age 16-49: 59,437,663 (2009 est.)
by Rikese » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:19 pm
Gauntleted Fist wrote:
Do you notice a slight difference there?CIA World Factbook wrote:India:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 237,042,868
females age 16-49: 243,276,310 (2009 est.)
United States:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 59,764,677
females age 16-49: 59,437,663 (2009 est.)
If it's fighting spirit or sheer willingness to die for country, probably Russia. (Going from examples like WWII.)
United Russian States wrote:Thrid Russia is moving towards an much larger force consiting of all volanteer soilders.
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:do you even expect for a minute i'd want to discuss anything further with you if you continue to show no respect to my opinions?
by DaWoad » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:44 pm
Anemos Major wrote:DaWoad wrote:
3)so you honestly believe that if Russia decided to invade france (fforgetting international involvement for a second) France would win huh?
DaWoad, with all due respect, by the time the Ruskis are halfway across Germany, both sides would have been nuked into a nuclear winter.
by Trippoli » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:47 pm
by Anemos Major » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:44 am
Risottia wrote:
I'm French, so I don't like to say this, but yeah... the GIS have a hell of a lot of experience clearing out the mob and communists from Sicilia.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Gillenor » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:05 am
Anemos Major wrote:Or France?
I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.
Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.
by Natapoc » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:16 am
by Anemos Major » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:07 am
Gillenor wrote:Anemos Major wrote:Or France?
I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.
Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.
Or in other words the french surrender immediatly.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Polythinia » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:18 am
Jakra wrote:Switzerland, they're a little too neutral if you ask me.
by Natapoc » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:26 am
by Kim Jong-ilia » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:45 am
United Russian State wrote:Baltija wrote:So you managed to pull an invasion on Georgia... Disregarding the fact that some "shitty" army inflicted some serious losses during few days, the communications were completely lost between airforce and army, and you have numerical superiority, you still managed!
If elite troops from VDV are unable to do jackshit without air support, what will you do if you go to fight against NATO? You know they will get air superiority from early stages of war, when what?
Its hard to understand what you really wanted to say, but I`ll guess... Georgia captured your air defences (!), and used them against you which makes your soldiers look like tools... Or did you meant that Su-27s were lost to Russian made air defence Georgia was using? Probably the latter one, but you`ll be dissapointed: Georgia doesn`t use Russian equipment. Soviet maybe, but not Russian. Oh, and no, it isn`t the same.
Serious losses? You confuse Georgia with Russia. Lost a lot more troops and almost it's entire military. They were completely crushed in a matter of a few days. Air superiority was taken from first start of the conflict, Georgia could do nothing. Their training by America didn't help at all.
You do know NATO is a joke right? It's basically America and Britain, all the other countries want to pull out as soon as one person is killed. Kill a few hundred and they'll cry and run. Kazakhstan would be more useful than most of them. Besides Russia air defense and air force is better than NATO. The only thing you would need to worry about is America's F-22. But even if you do get air superiority doesn't mean you can win the war with it alone. When NATO attacked Serbia it hardly put a dent in their military unlike we were lead to belief at first where NATO thought it completely destroyed it. It destroyed a lot of rubber tanks though at least.
Oh really? Tor missile system was used by Georgia to down those planes.
by A White Hawk » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:49 am
Anemos Major wrote:Gillenor wrote:Anemos Major wrote:Or France?
I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.
Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.
Or in other words the french surrender immediatly.
Like half the Soviet military at the beginning of WWII...?
Remember Capitaine Danjou from the FFL? There's a reason his wooden hand is still preserved.
by Gopferdammi » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:48 am
by Clamparapa » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:52 am
by Suvon » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:14 am
by Khodoristan » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:06 am
Trippoli wrote:NONE OF THE ABOVE!!
ALL FALL ON THEIR KNEES AND BOW BEFORE THE SUPREME ARMY OF ALLAH AND OSAMA!
ALLAH U AKBAR!
by Anemos Major » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:07 am
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Khodoristan » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: British Arzelentaxmacone, Hurdergaryp, Liberal Malaysia, Nu Elysium, Russk, Shrillland, Unmet Player
Advertisement