Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Ravelin Eb

---

Dont start topics like this for the love of god. Everyone will just say their countries and it just becomes a chest beating contest.

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Gram for Gram I would say the UK is unrivaled, ofc it is outclassed by China and the US, but the quality of training and the level of technology in our equipment would mean we could take on a larger force and win.

---

Originally by: Mtthias Clemi

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Gram for Gram I would say the UK is unrivaled, ofc it is outclassed by China and the US, but the quality of training and the level of technology in our equipment would mean we could take on a larger force and win.

---

I would agree, when we get our new naval tech in the field especially.

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go. China's potential 1 billion man conscript army? they don't have the ability to move more than a few % of that.

---

Originally by: Karen Serasia

---

Because some idiot decided to sell an internet connection to me and didn't think of the consequences.

---

Originally by: Menkaure

---

Multiply this by this, and you probably end up with the US top and thats about it.

Really interesting that US has 4.76 soldiers per 1k citizens, whereas China has only 1.71 per 1k citizens (less than even the UK). I presumed that China had a very high ratio of soldiers, but I guess I was wrong, the rest of us are more warlike.

---

Originally by: Ilvan

---

Originally by: Oventoasted

---

i hate freedom of the press! they have too much freedom if you ask me. barging into peoples lives. reporting false statements. stretching the true or just out right lying!

makes me angry.

---

I ******* hope you're being sarcastic.

---

Originally by: Ilvan

---

Originally by: Oventoasted

---

i hate freedom of the press! they have too much freedom if you ask me. barging into peoples lives. reporting false statements. stretching the true or just out right lying!

makes me angry.

---

I ******* hope you're being sarcastic.

---

Originally by: Multras

---

News cameras are more deadly then guns in a war.

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Originally by: Multras

---

News cameras are more deadly then guns in a war.

---

I remember a few US troops decided to follow this line of thought - they sniped a cameraman in Iraq (British btw) beleiveing it to be a rocket launcher.
I thought snipers were supposed to have good vision and recon skills

---

Originally by: Oventoasted

---

nope i'm serious.

not saying all news papers and news stations report opinions and BS. i mean hell i see more about celebrities then actual news! the news reports what will get the most views then actually reporting the facts and events.

---

Originally by: Sereifex Daku

---

Speaking of which, I remember when Sky News put a live camera feed in Baghdad during the Iraq war. That was scary. It was like Big brother meets war (vote which building you want to disappear ).

---

Originally by: Menkaure

---

Multiply this by this, and you probably end up with the US top and thats about it.

Really interesting that US has 4.76 soldiers per 1k citizens, whereas China has only 1.71 per 1k citizens (less than even the UK). I presumed that China had a very high ratio of soldiers, but I guess I was wrong, the rest of us are more warlike.

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

USA for best tech weapons

UK for best trained and most professional forces in the World.

---

Originally by: Sharupak

---

The best conventional military is actually far and away the U.S.

But if you are talking mach wars, China would beat us due to the fact that our country is so heavily infiltrated by their spy network.

---

Originally by: digitalwanderer

---

Basically i wouldn't predict a winner if heaven forbid,China and the US went head on into a war with each other,using all their military might,and no matter who won at the end,it'll cost them dearly in terms of material losses but above all else,human lives....

---

Originally by: digitalwanderer

---

Originally by: Sharupak

---

The best conventional military is actually far and away the U.S.

But if you are talking mach wars, China would beat us due to the fact that our country is so heavily infiltrated by their spy network.

---

Sorry ....Mach wars?.


Don't get me wrong here,the US has the most up to date and modern conventional military there is,but china isn't using Mig 21's or vietnam era T72 tanks anymore...They have the latest in terms of what russia makes(mig 30/35/37)with thrust vectoring and very advanced avionics that are a match for F15's/F16's/F18's any day of the week and have a huge amount of those to boot...Same goes with tanks with the russian T90 wich is every bit as good as a US abrams tank.....F22's obviously kick ass,but there's current only 100 of them in active service,so not enough to make a real difference against such a large amount.


Basically i wouldn't predict a winner if heaven forbid,China and the US went head on into a war with each other,using all their military might,and no matter who won at the end,it'll cost them dearly in terms of material losses but above all else,human lives....

---

Originally by: Lady Centrina

---

Originally by: digitalwanderer

---

History lesson

---

I would have to disagree with you there. MacArthur wanted a counter attack after the Battle of the Chosin reservoir after UN forces cleared all 7 divisions to retreat...60,000 soldiers, but it was denied by the United Nations who saw that this decisive victory would bring the communist forces to peace talks and everyone would save face.
_______________________________________________
RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

My money is on China. They already have a force larger than anybodies and if they ever had a draft.....

We could nuke em 12 times over and they would probably still have enough troops to walk over us.

If any country ever invaded the US I would do my part as a partisan but if China came over all I gotta say is 喂

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Hellgan

---

Canadians? Anyone?

Hehe. There might not be many of us, but I know we have some of the best trained soldiers in the world. Our JTF (Joint task force... Basically the equivalent of US's Marines) are simply amazing. Americans send some of their soldiers to train here in Canada for that. But to be realistic, I'm aware that Canada doesn't really stand a chance against the US, UK, or China... Simply because you all out-number us. And I'll be honnest, I don't know anything about the UK or CHina's military forces.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Hellgan

---

Canadians? Anyone?

Hehe. There might not be many of us, but I know we have some of the best trained soldiers in the world. Our JTF (Joint task force... Basically the equivalent of US's Marines) are simply amazing. Americans send some of their soldiers to train here in Canada for that. But to be realistic, I'm aware that Canada doesn't really stand a chance against the US, UK, or China... Simply because you all out-number us. And I'll be honnest, I don't know anything about the UK or CHina's military forces.

---

The Americans can't even keep a nation the size of texas under control, how do they ever expect to keep a nation like Canada under control? Ever been to a hockey game where the ran out of beer? same thing, except with guns.

---

Originally by: Ilvan

---

Originally by: Oventoasted

---

nope i'm serious.

not saying all news papers and news stations report opinions and BS. i mean hell i see more about celebrities then actual news! the news reports what will get the most views then actually reporting the facts and events.

---

This is a problem with monolithic corporate news entities, not free journalism itself. Freedom of the press is one of the most important things in a democracy.

Putting up with tabloids and celebrity nonsense is a very small price to pay.

---

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny

---

The Swiss!

---

Originally by: SoftRevolution

---

Definitely the Swiss.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

My money is on China. They already have a force larger than anybodies and if they ever had a draft.....

We could nuke em 12 times over and they would probably still have enough troops to walk over us.

If any country ever invaded the US I would do my part as a partisan but if China came over all I gotta say is 喂

---

Originally by: Multras

---

News cameras are more deadly then guns in a war.

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.

---

Originally by: Yarrick

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.

---

People may joke about the Dutch, but they are one of the few countrys that are taking an effective fighting role on the front lines in Afghanistan. So good on you boys!! They may be small but atleast they're willing to fight.

---

Originally by: Lucius Dracus

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

USA for best tech weapons

UK for best trained and most professional forces in the World.

---

This.

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.

---

Originally by: Der Komissar

---

Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana

"3000km forest that way"

---

Originally by: Der Komissar

---

Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana

"3000km forest that way"

---

Originally by: Der Komissar

---

Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana

"3000km forest that way"

---

Originally by: Lady Centrina

---

Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war?

---

Originally by: Valan

---

The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa.

The US did the last minute cavalry thing in Europe to take a great big chunk of the German technology they knew about from defecting scientists and they didn't want the Russians getting it all. Where do you think the final piece of the jigsaw came from for those first nukes?

---

Originally by: Reiisha

---

Originally by: Dave White

---

Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day!

---

You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult.

---

Originally by: Valan

---

The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa.

---

Originally by: Lady Centrina

---

Yes, by all means lets believe the French. I do believe that the French were steamrolled not once but twice by the Germans in the 1900's and the only reason they don't speak German is because of the US. In my opinion the US would have been better off to let ****** keep France during WWII. If the US had instead focused on better parts of Europe, like Hungry, Romania and Austria to name a few the EU would be the most formidable force outside of North America.

The French are weaklings, they have continued to believe they are great based off of battles that took place 200 years ago. In a world of what have you done for me lately, they are not any better off than some of the African tribes in Congo or Sudan.

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go.

---

Originally by: Mudkest

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go.

---

meanwhile, you are shipping reservists! to iraq and afghanistan cause you dont have enough troops otherwise.

and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it?

You are confusing most expensive with best...

---

Originally by: Lady Centrina

---

Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war?

---

Originally by: Sharupak

---

No no, dont get me wrong, I would like war and weapons and generally the human mindset to kill each other to get ahead to go away. When I say mach battle, I mean just that...not a real one a fake one in an environment that could predict a winner without real combat. Like a computer simulation.

---

Quote:

---

With that being addressed, there are many more elements to warfare than tech level of equipment and how much of it you have. Infact, that is probably the least significant factor in winning a battle.

The U.S. military actually spends more money on command control and communications than either weapons or training. The reason America can take on armies 10 times her size in conventional warfare is because of a philosophy that took about 50 years to realize. This has led to a term called network centric warfare. All units on the battlefield are linked to intelligence gathered by all the units on the battlefield. This gives you a TITANIC advantage over an enemy force. It allows the elimination of virutally all of the fog of war and allows you to make the enemy's fog much thicker. You can better manage where to put your forces or drop ordinance to generate maximum effect.

---

Quote:

---

Thats why the U.S. will pump 2 billion dollars to create a stealth bomber that damage wise is less powerful than a B52. What is are the targets for the most expensive military aircraft ever invented? Missle launchers? Bunkers? Runways? Factories? Nope...its targets are Communications towers, Power plants and radar stations. It is designed to use its stealth to make all the other non stealthy military units...stealthy. They are the first in and their job is to turn the lights out. All your sam batteries, migs, tanks, soldiers are shooting with blindfolds on. But they will run out of bullets and fuel soon because the second target is the logistic chain.

---

Originally by: Sereifex Daku

---

To be fair, America hasn't 'won' a war in a long time because the rules of war has changed immensely over the past one or two centuries. It started when we stopped keeping the land we conquered, instead giving it back. That's the way I see it, anyway.

---

Originally by: Mtthias Clemi

---

Did you not read what i just wrote?

---

Originally by: Cipher7

---

US weapon technology

Israeli street smarts

Russian vodka

Chinese manpower

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

The plain and simple fact of things is that the US armed forces has not taken on a "modern" army since the Korean War. Afghanistan and Iraq were fielding equipment that the soviets were in the first Afghan war, with limited modifications.

Every armed conflict the US has participated in where the opposing force was sufficiently up to date in its ability to make war has often ended very poorly in terms of performance. World War II, as an example, the US was very very behind the Germans in both intelligence gathering, strategy (they'd been fighting war for nearly 6 years before the US arrived, thus battle hardened.) and technology. The war was not won by the Allies because of the US, the US was just more meat bearing down on what was an otherwise very scary armed forces.

As with the First World War, the US's prowess, or lack thereof, was not the reason the war ended in favour of the Entente. The Germans simply did not have enough men to fight the French, the British, the Commonwealth, and the Americans. The fact that they held off as long as they did is simply amazing.

As an aside, I'd like to bring out the example of how technology is ultimately fallible to sheer numbers. The German Tiger tank was so advanced by the time the Allies took to the field in France, the only way they could overrun it was to:

a) make it deplete its ammunition by simply feeding it tank after tank
b) disable it so its crew could only kill as many allied tanks as possible before trying to make a run for it on foot.
c) destroy it in the factory.

A similar situation occured with the ME262, the fighter was so fast that the only way Allied pilots were able to destroy them is the chase them back to base and pop them as they were approaching the field to land. Or, as with the Tiger, destroy them when they were unmanned.

All these F35 and B2 planes good for surgical strikes, but how specialized is the fuel that these aircraft use? Are its munitions standard, or do they have to be custom mounted before being usable? It doesn't matter how fancy you make a weapon, you can still just as easily kill someone with a goddamn stick if you have enough sticks and enough men.

---

Originally by: Hank Showbo

---

And yet still most of these WWII games make America out to be the only country involved in the war.

I have seen many documentaries and all the Allies deserve thier fair share, the British RAF was a major factor that hardly gets a mention, unless its the battle of britian which quite frankly the US wont be bothered about.

---

Originally by: Sereifex Daku

---

Originally by: Hank Showbo

---

And yet still most of these WWII games make America out to be the only country involved in the war.

I have seen many documentaries and all the Allies deserve thier fair share, the British RAF was a major factor that hardly gets a mention, unless its the battle of britian which quite frankly the US wont be bothered about.

---

Yeah, that has always ****ed me off. The game that came closest to recognising the achievements of the RAF was Secret Weapons over Normandy...but even then the main character was some American volunteer who managed to save all the British pilots.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Sereifex Daku

---

Originally by: Hank Showbo

---

And yet still most of these WWII games make America out to be the only country involved in the war.

I have seen many documentaries and all the Allies deserve thier fair share, the British RAF was a major factor that hardly gets a mention, unless its the battle of britian which quite frankly the US wont be bothered about.

---

Yeah, that has always ****ed me off. The game that came closest to recognising the achievements of the RAF was Secret Weapons over Normandy...but even then the main character was some American volunteer who managed to save all the British pilots.

---

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the RAF biting back the Luftwaffe from Great Britian, the Allies would have had no place to organize an invasion from. Fortress Britian was central to winning the war, and when one reads just how close the Commonwealth was to losing Britian, well, it makes the notion that the US won WW2 for the allies all that more insulting.

I can pretty much picture what the Germans were thinking when the US arrived on the scene, "Schei¯e, we have to kill these guys now too. Fritz, bring up ze anderer machinegun."

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

As for nukes Germany provided nothing towards their development by providing some missing piece. The Manhattan Project was a HUGE undertaking (I think it remains the largest single cost for any scientific project ever). The Germans surrendered in early May, the first nuke was tested in mid-July. In fact, had Germany not surrendered I believe the intention was to drop the first nukes on Germany.

---

Originally by: Gladiator Jonny

---

Ill openly admit that america have the best army in the world.
But being british, I dont mean it.


Granted, they would have an amazing army, nicely trained, well equiped and good technology.
Now where in all the training, equpiment and technology is the little thingy that stops you shooting your fkin friends?

my views alone.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Oventoasted

---

Edited by: Oventoasted on 25/11/2007 02:38:16
Edited by: Oventoasted on 25/11/2007 02:35:19
guerilla warfare will always come out on top when the enemy plays by the rules. iraq has and is doing it, Vietnamese did it, french did it in ww2, americans did it in the revolutionary war.

only way to stop it i think is mass killings or quiting.

war isnt fair or nice why do people always think that it should be. either fight to win or dont go to war at all.

EDIT: genocide is the wrong word i mean mass killings or murder

---

Originally by: Thorliaron

---

The Germans, they have proven that they can rock it with the strongest of them and still give major powers a bloody nose on two occasion's!.

Why do Americans assume the can nuke whoever they want and not get nuked back?. Other people have nukes and aint scared to use them either you know

And America cant have the best army becuase your top military cheifs are scared about trying to boss iran about, why?, becuase they will give you a pretty good fight..and no you cant 'just nuk'em' because that leads to their mates nuking you.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Heres a Hypothetical for you, the EU vs USA, what would that particular war be like, let's say a while after Galileo is completed and the German's have their supersonic torpedoes ready (I heard about these from a freind, apparenty they have air canisters that are released as bubbles just in front of it to reduce friction, they move faster than sound waves in water so a sub never sees them on sonar....).

---

Originally by: Thorliaron

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Heres a Hypothetical for you, the EU vs USA, what would that particular war be like, let's say a while after Galileo is completed and the German's have their supersonic torpedoes ready (I heard about these from a freind, apparenty they have air canisters that are released as bubbles just in front of it to reduce friction, they move faster than sound waves in water so a sub never sees them on sonar....).

---

If the EU was ever to turn into a superstate with one army i think they would seriously give america a run for their money, America would proberly have to rely on their navy fleet?

---

Quote:

---

Millions will die between California

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Heres a Hypothetical for you, the EU vs USA, what would that particular war be like, let's say a while after Galileo is completed and the German's have their supersonic torpedoes ready (I heard about these from a freind, apparenty they have air canisters that are released as bubbles just in front of it to reduce friction, they move faster than sound waves in water so a sub never sees them on sonar....).

---

Originally by: Valan

---

We're still paying the USA back for World War II, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. Thats why we're in Iraq, our troops are helping pay the old debt.

---

Quote:

---

An I has a P90, with triple rail, assault scope, laser pointer and a whole load of bullpub shooting goodness :)

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

And just remember folks, if you're not in a war from the beginning, you don't count!

Also I believe the UK finished its payments to the US last year or the year before.

---

Originally by: Indoril Siconus

---

Quote:

---

An I has a P90, with triple rail, assault scope, laser pointer and a whole load of bullpub shooting goodness :)

---

Too bad you wont be able to hit anything more than 10 feet away

---

Originally by: Mudkest

---

and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it?

You are confusing most expensive with best...

---

Originally by: Cipher7

---

No, the French definitely are not cowards.

I find alot of their cultural aspects bizarre.

---

Originally by: Keorythe

---

Just want to point out to some of the tech fanboi's out there some obvious points.

First of all, technology is a great equalizer against larger numbers. But it has its limitations and can still be overrun by sheer numbers. Someone mentioned the Panzer vs. Sherman and that is a perfect example. In other words you can't rely on technology alone and have to have some decent numbers of your own.

Second, logistics and sustainability are probably the most important aspect of any military. It doesn't matter how well trained or how high tech an army. If they can't feed their people, maintain their equipment from wear or damage, and can't sustain losses then they aren't that great of an army. An example is most of the EU nations. Most have extremely good tech such as the Leopard tank or the Eurofighter. However, beyond patrol of their own territories most of those countries cannot replenish losses or sustain a combat ready maintenance schedule for very long. The UK have the largest logistical abilities but even they are easily taxed thanks to many of their recent military cutbacks. I believe their Navy has been hit the hardest but would appreciate if a brit sailor would confirm that.

Finally there is funding for flexibility. As with any war tactics change and become fluid. Successful armies need the money to adapt to new technologies and tactics. Some of this can be done with current means but often it means developing new technologies of your own. This requires access to additional funding beyond estimated war budgets. Two examples are fighter planes during WWII and the military vehicles in Iraq. Both Axis and Allies developed a slew of more advanced fighter planes over a 5yr period. By the end the Germans were working with jets and the Americans were introducing the funky looking Corsair. In Iraq the personal transports were originally just heavy duty jeeps, usually with no doors for easy dismounting. Enter the remote detonated roadside bomb. Now they are heavily plated and turreted APC's (armor personel carrier). We wont even get into bomb defusal or detonation advances.

Maybe this will shed a bit more light on combat readiness for the noobies.

p.s.- special forces are not front line soldiers nor contribute much to a standard firefight let alone attempt to sustain one. Engaging an enemy unit is usually the last thing they want to do unless dictated by their mission. SEALs, SAS, Spetznaz, etc have all had their fair share of units being attacked by conventional armies and killed to a man. Lets not kid ourselves here, special forces are specialists that do special jobs and thats it.

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Valan

---

We're still paying the USA back for World War II, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. Thats why we're in Iraq, our troops are helping pay the old debt.

---

Err? no I don't think so!

---

Originally by: SoftRevolution

---

Edited by: SoftRevolution on 25/11/2007 22:52:55
At least Call of Duty made a point of having Russians and Brits.

Captain Price and his terrifying face hair was especially badass.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

And just remember folks, if you're not in a war from the beginning, you don't count!

Also I believe the UK finished its payments to the US last year or the year before.

---

Originally by: Mtthias Clemi

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Valan

---

We're still paying the USA back for World War II, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. Thats why we're in Iraq, our troops are helping pay the old debt.

---

Err? no I don't think so!

---

UK finished paying their war debts off already

---

Originally by: Kala Veijo

---

Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Kala Veijo

---

Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing.

---

That is a great meme

---

Originally by: James Swindle

---

Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: James Swindle

---

Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.

---

They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers.

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: James Swindle

---

Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.

---

They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers.

---

"Friendly" fire has gotten people in all wars from any country. Just happens (sadly).

---

Quote:

---

I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time

---

Originally by: DarkMatter

---

...Fox News inspired drivel...

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: DarkMatter

---

...Fox News inspired drivel...

---

All hail the glorious leader Hillary/Obama/Whoever the ****?

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

There is nothing friendly about dropping a couple 500lb bombs on a training exercise. Your pilots never called for confirmation of enemy activity, they just decided that the platoon of Canadian soldiers on the ground were a target of opportunity. This is what happens when people think war is a game, but moreover, when national fervor prevents rational thought.

---

Originally by: ry ry

---

untill relatively recentl, america had kille dmore british soldiers in iraq than the iraqis had.

go team america!

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: James Swindle

---

Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.

---

They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers.

---

Originally by: Vladimir Ilych

---

Stupidity is universal.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

EDIT: Seems the Brits have done this too --
- British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

- British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

---

Originally by: Yarrick

---

Edited by: Yarrick on 27/11/2007 01:46:04

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

EDIT: Seems the Brits have done this too --
- British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

- British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

---

ffs guys, can we please not use the names of dead soldiers too prove an e-peen argument on an internet spaceships forum.
F-ucking disgraceful!!!

---

Originally by: Yarrick

---

Edited by: Yarrick on 27/11/2007 01:46:04

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

EDIT: Seems the Brits have done this too --
- British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

- British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

---

ffs guys, can we please not use the names of dead soldiers too prove an e-peen argument on an internet spaceships forum.
F-ucking disgraceful!!!

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Yarrick

---

Edited by: Yarrick on 27/11/2007 01:46:04

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

EDIT: Seems the Brits have done this too --
- British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

- British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

---

ffs guys, can we please not use the names of dead soldiers too prove an e-peen argument on an internet spaceships forum.
F-ucking disgraceful!!!

---

Using their names shows more respect for them than the baldfaced number that many people would otherwise consider for a discussion like this. Many of the individuals in here seem completely oblivious to the notion that all those casualties were men, same as you, me or that guy down the street, who died for someone elses politics.

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Gladiator Jonny

---

Ill openly admit that america have the best army in the world.
But being british, I dont mean it.


Granted, they would have an amazing army, nicely trained, well equiped and good technology.
Now where in all the training, equpiment and technology is the little thingy that stops you shooting your fkin friends?

my views alone.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

The plain and simple fact of things is that the US armed forces has not taken on a "modern" army since the Korean War. Afghanistan and Iraq were fielding equipment that the soviets were in the first Afghan war, with limited modifications.

Every armed conflict the US has participated in where the opposing force was sufficiently up to date in its ability to make war has often ended very poorly in terms of performance

....

All these F35 and B2 planes good for surgical strikes, but how specialized is the fuel that these aircraft use? Are its munitions standard, or do they have to be custom mounted before being usable? It doesn't matter how fancy you make a weapon, you can still just as easily kill someone with a goddamn stick if you have enough sticks and enough men.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Using their names shows more respect for them than the baldfaced number that many people would otherwise consider for a discussion like this. Many of the individuals in here seem completely oblivious to the notion that all those casualties were men, same as you, me or that guy down the street, who died for someone elses politics.

---

Originally by: Valan

---

We need to ditch the SA80 and buy an American assault rile.

---

Originally by: Mudkest

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go.

---

meanwhile, you are shipping reservists! to iraq and afghanistan cause you dont have enough troops otherwise.

and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it?

You are confusing most expensive with best...

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Ademaro Imre

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

The plain and simple fact of things is that the US armed forces has not taken on a "modern" army since the Korean War. Afghanistan and Iraq were fielding equipment that the soviets were in the first Afghan war, with limited modifications.

Every armed conflict the US has participated in where the opposing force was sufficiently up to date in its ability to make war has often ended very poorly in terms of performance

....

All these F35 and B2 planes good for surgical strikes, but how specialized is the fuel that these aircraft use? Are its munitions standard, or do they have to be custom mounted before being usable? It doesn't matter how fancy you make a weapon, you can still just as easily kill someone with a goddamn stick if you have enough sticks and enough men.

---

Every armed conflict? You always make me laugh. The first Armed conflicts that the Americans were in, even as colonies and fighting to get away from the colonies went very well, and so did the rest.

You should look up the stats of the Korean War, and the Vietnam war, especially the air wars.
You also need to acquaint yourself with the roles of the B2 bomber and other stealth assets. It really won't matter how many soldiers you have, or what weapons they have, if they have no idea where to go or what to do and have no logistics support.

---

Originally by: Thorliaron

---

yeah in Korea you lost 95% of the country then took back 95% of the country to then only end up with half the country - sounds like a total victory to me. Oh and Vietnam wa a real victory aswell right?. Air wars?..what your planes vs rust buckets and thin air?

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Quote:

---

Oh and Vietnam wa a real victory aswell right?.

---

Originally by: Thorliaron

---

yeah in Korea you lost 95% of the country then took back 95% of the country to then only end up with half the country - sounds like a total victory to me. Oh and Vietnam wa a real victory aswell right?. Air wars?..what your planes vs rust buckets and thin air?

---

Originally by: James Swindle

---

Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49
I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.

---

Originally by: Ademaro Imre

---

Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 27/11/2007 08:01:09

Originally by: Mudkest

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go.

---

meanwhile, you are shipping reservists! to iraq and afghanistan cause you dont have enough troops otherwise.

and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it?

You are confusing most expensive with best...

---

You lack basic knowledge uf the US Military. So that the US does not need to maintain a large standing Army, it does rely on reservists. War's in the last 100 years? In battle terms, World War One, World War Two, Korea (not counting the the ceasefire, the US would have went to the Chinese border and threatened nukes is the Chinese sent too many troops), Vietnam War, Grenada, Bosnia (that little place was too much for even NATO to take care of without the US), Gulf War I. (Seriously, Iraqi defenders were not worried about Egyptian tanks like they were M1's) And Al Qaeda has basically retreated out of Baghdad and into the country of Iraq and Afganistan. And the Cold War. There is a reason that there are still US military bases in Germany still. Who was the backbone of NATO during the cold war? British interceptors escorting Bears back to Russia?

As for World War One, the US was not in it? Denying that the US was not involved in WWI is like denying the Holocaust. The US had at least 2 million troops in the field and manned more miles of front than any other allied nation at the war's conclusion. The Russians barely beat H itler. For example, Russia only managed to build 900 some locomotives for their entire war effort. While fighting two war fronts, supplying England, the US built 2,000 locomotives for Russia, and then sailed them to Russia. That's just a sample of the logistics that the US supplied Russia with in addition to weapons, food, planes, tanks, and ammunition. And the US still supplied England with twice as much supplies than she did Russia.

---

Originally by: Paulo Damarr

---

That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

In the end in all these conflicts on paper the US did better. MUCH more enemy dead. More planes shot down and so on than what we lost. This clearly fails when the leaders of the enemy do not care for their soldiers or the civilians and only care to maintain power no matter the cost. In short to beat them you need to embark on a course of genocide as nothing short of that will stop those leaders. They'll sacrifice the last of their citizens in such cases. If you are unwilling to embark on genocide not sure how you could ever expect to win against them.

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people that have replied in this thread have served?

---

Originally by: benzss

---

btw, the UK's navy is the 2nd biggest in the world.

Yeah, it surprised me too.

---

Originally by: Rialtor

---

China would steam roll anyone 1v1, that includes the US. The country with the better economy, production, morale, and mindset will win. Wars are fought till a people are broken. I think Americans will be easier to break.

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

I see China is building up it's Navy. What happens if it DOES actualy land forces in Taiwan, do we get another Cyprus or does WW3 bread out due to UN protection?

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

I see China is building up it's Navy. What happens if it DOES actualy land forces in Taiwan, do we get another Cyprus or does WW3 bread out due to UN protection?

---

They'd probably never get forces to Taiwan. They'd need to own the air first and I seriously doubt they could do that. Especially with the likes of the F22 Raptor in service. There are not many of them but in war games so far they simply own the sky versus anything thrown at them.

IF China got ownership of the air they'd then need to own the sea and again versus US attack subs and guided missile cruisers not very likely.

IF China owned the sea and the air they'd need to suppress Taiwan coastal defenses. A soldier with an shoulder fired anti-tank weapon can screw-up most landing craft.

In short it would be a massive effort. Just look at what the Allies threw at the D-Day invasion and that was before missiles and GPS targeted artillery and such.

And yeah...good chance at starting WW3 if China tried.

---

Originally by: Vladimir Ilych

---

Stupidity is universal.

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

You Americans did this exact same thing in Vietnam with your Phantoms. "The days of dogfighting are over, with this new fire and forget system, the enemy will never get within range to return fire before being destroyed". Newsflash, you don't need no fancy radar to chase down another jet and empty some 30mm - 50mm rounds into his ass.

---

It's cute you think they could ACTUALLY fly well enough to get onto a F-22's tail like that. Let's think again here, the F-22 manages to out maneuver and out fly every other aircraft the U.S. throws at it in war games, aircraft that have the "fancy radar" still cannot compare to the sheer speed and maneuverability of the F-22. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it didn't simply dodge enough to the point that the "enemy" couldn't secure a kill, the F-22 looped back and secured a kill of its own.
You're assumption that China still uses a technologically inferior air fleet is also childish and ill-informed. They are becoming quite a power in the world, not just with numbers but with technology. I still put forth the U.S. armed forces as superior, but that is only considering the myriad of support options we still support and uphold.
What I say here... does not reflect on my corp or alliance.

Originally by: Krows

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

You Americans did this exact same thing in Vietnam with your Phantoms. "The days of dogfighting are over, with this new fire and forget system, the enemy will never get within range to return fire before being destroyed". Newsflash, you don't need no fancy radar to chase down another jet and empty some 30mm - 50mm rounds into his ass.

---

It's cute you think they could ACTUALLY fly well enough to get onto a F-22's tail like that. Let's think again here, the F-22 manages to out maneuver and out fly every other aircraft the U.S. throws at it in war games, aircraft that have the "fancy radar" still cannot compare to the sheer speed and maneuverability of the F-22. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it didn't simply dodge enough to the point that the "enemy" couldn't secure a kill, the F-22 looped back and secured a kill of its own.
You're assumption that China still uses a technologically inferior air fleet is also childish and ill-informed. They are becoming quite a power in the world, not just with numbers but with technology. I still put forth the U.S. armed forces as superior, but that is only considering the myriad of support options we still support and uphold.

---

---

Learn 2 post, noob.

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 27/11/2007 22:05:39

Originally by: Rialtor

---

China would steam roll anyone 1v1, that includes the US. The country with the better economy, production, morale, and mindset will win. Wars are fought till a people are broken. I think Americans will be easier to break.

---

Not true. If it were true why hasn't China taken Taiwan (which to this day they claim as theirs and regularly threaten Taiwan)? Simple answer is that they absolutely cannot.

1v1 I'll take any Western soldier over a Chinese conscript any day. All China has going for their army is numbers. That certainly counts especially with as many as they have but China cannot project power much beyond their immediate borders. Taiwan is all of 100 miles or so from China and the Chinese are quite incapable of moving crossing that in sufficient force to nail Taiwan. How do you suppose they'd make it across the entire Pacific to the US in the face of the world's premier blue water fleet?

Oh, and if an enemy force actually invaded the US I think you'd see US resolve stiffen considerably and have all they backbone you want to kick them out. Not only that this is a nation of guns. Our citizens are rather well armed. An enemy force would not only fight against our military but every yahoo with an arsenal in their basement.

---

Originally by: Krows

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

You Americans did this exact same thing in Vietnam with your Phantoms. "The days of dogfighting are over, with this new fire and forget system, the enemy will never get within range to return fire before being destroyed". Newsflash, you don't need no fancy radar to chase down another jet and empty some 30mm - 50mm rounds into his ass.

---

It's cute you think they could ACTUALLY fly well enough to get onto a F-22's tail like that. Let's think again here, the F-22 manages to out maneuver and out fly every other aircraft the U.S. throws at it in war games, aircraft that have the "fancy radar" still cannot compare to the sheer speed and maneuverability of the F-22. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it didn't simply dodge enough to the point that the "enemy" couldn't secure a kill, the F-22 looped back and secured a kill of its own.
You're assumption that China still uses a technologically inferior air fleet is also childish and ill-informed. They are becoming quite a power in the world, not just with numbers but with technology. I still put forth the U.S. armed forces as superior, but that is only considering the myriad of support options we still support and uphold.

---

Can a Eurofighter not catch it?











The Real Eve FanFest

Originally by: Cecil Montague

---

They should change that warning on entering low sec to:

"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Cecil Montague

---

They should change that warning on entering low sec to:

"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."

---

Originally by: ISD Valorem

---

The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.

---

Originally by: Psycho John Petrucci

---

If there's any point where you feel it's too difficult, then just stop. Because you just, you don't have it, you're just not good.

---

Originally by: Captain Hudson

---

Can a Eurofighter not catch it?

---

Quote:

---

To confront the F-22-led ôBlue Airö collection, the joint force mustered its best ôRed Airö threatùfront-line F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. The F-22Æs team blitzed the opposition with a favorable 241-to-two kill ratio. WhatÆs more, the two lost aircraft were F-15Cs, not F-22s. The Raptors came through the engagements untouched.

In Red Flags, Bergeson said, ôyou have a great day if you lose only 10 percent of your forces.ö The massively lopsided victory for the stealthy F-22-led force was unprecedented.

ôThey [the Red Air adversaries] couldnÆt see us,ö Tolliver said. This was true even when the opponents were assisted by AWACS. ôAnd thatÆs what makes the F-22 special,ö Tolliver went on. ôIÆm out there and I have weapons like an F-15C or an F-16, but ... IÆm basically invisible to the other guyÆs radar.ö

The 241-to-two record was amassed over two weeks of air engagements. Tolliver noted that, in such battles, Red Air units were allowed to regenerate and return to the fight, but lost Blue forces could not. Even with such handicaps, in the largest single engagement, F-22-led forces claimed 83 enemies to one loss, after facing down an opposing force that had generated or regenerated 103 adversary fighters.

SOURCE: http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.asp

---

Quote:

---

OK, so it was a simulated war game. But F-22 fighters from Langley AFB's 27th Fighter Squadron, participating in Exercise Northern Edge, 2006, have tackled the simulated Sukhois thrown at them with record- breaking aplomb -- final result, 108 "Sukhois" killed. Zero Raptors.

This included situations wherein the Raptors were outnumbered up to eight to one by the simulated Russian front-line Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft.

In similar situations, F-15 and F-18E fighters also beat the Sukhois, statistically -- but by a 2:1 ratio. The score looks more like a pro soccer game than the Raptors' basketball score -- racked up between an NCAA powerhouse and a high school in pygmy country.

At Oshkosh, the entire aeronautical community was poleaxed by the otherworldly maneuverability of the F-22s... we've never before seen a whole line of professional photographers too busy staring to shoot.

SOURCE: http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/August/08102006/08102006-09.htm

---

Originally by: Derovius Vaden

---

You Americans did this exact same thing in Vietnam with your Phantoms. "The days of dogfighting are over, with this new fire and forget system, the enemy will never get within range to return fire before being destroyed". Newsflash, you don't need no fancy radar to chase down another jet and empty some 30mm - 50mm rounds into his ass.

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people that have replied in this thread have served?

---

I did. In the Royal Horse Artillery

---

Originally by: Wild Rho

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people that have replied in this thread have served?

---

I did. In the Royal Horse Artillery

---

You bombarded people with horses?

---

Originally by: Wild Rho

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people that have replied in this thread have served?

---

I did. In the Royal Horse Artillery

---

You bombarded people with horses?

---

Originally by: Arianhod

---

Edited by: Arianhod on 28/11/2007 13:52:41
If it comes to it my money is on western powers discarding the image of "we are civlised" and fighting as dirty as the enemy. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, look at Churchill planning out bombing raids to elminate German cities producing ammunition and equipment.

---

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

---

And FWIW dropping the Atom bombs on Japan almost certainly saved lives overall. Perverse I know but true. Crazy as it sounds it is probably the best result the Japanese could have had at that point.

---

Originally by: Krows

---

So, Derovius, are you going to actually challenge what I say or will you just use popular internet phrases in an attempt to make me look stupid? Sorry, I was in a rush but I felt what I had written would still merit some argument out of you. So I'll say it again, the F-22 is not only a stand-off engagement fighter, but an amazing dog fighter as well. Oh yeah, stop playing Command and Conquer Generals for an accurate representation of the Chinese military. Their air force is far more considerable than a mass of cold war era fighter planes (which again by the way would never catch an F-22).

---

Originally by: Wild Rho

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people that have replied in this thread have served?

---

I did. In the Royal Horse Artillery

---

You bombarded people with horses?

---