Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/28/08 12:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The dynamics of Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq are so dissimilar from a conventional war that only a completely uneducated ignoramus would suggest they represent weaknesses in the US military with regards to fighting other militaries in an actual conventional war.

Allthough your absolutly right. But I find it incredibly funny how you constantly laugh at how shit the British were against the Riflemen of the American war of independence. Which I try and tell you over and over again that unconventional warfare can do well against conventional powerfull militarys. Both the Viet Cong and the Patriots used Gurrelia warfare, Both were supplied by super powers. They are very similar, allthough the Patriots didn't use such Brutal tactics.

At 1/28/08 12:08 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/28/08 12:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The dynamics of Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq are so dissimilar from a conventional war that only a completely uneducated ignoramus would suggest they represent weaknesses in the US military with regards to fighting other militaries in an actual conventional war.

Allthough your absolutly right. But I find it incredibly funny how you constantly laugh at how shit the British were against the Riflemen of the American war of independence.

That's not really the same because I would not deny that the British had by far the most proficient conventional military at the time, and would have defeated any conventional military.

However, the situation is different overall. The British military basically had free reign in the colonies, and a mandate to defeat any opposition, using their full strength. The US could do neither in Vietnam or Somalia, considering one was a defensive operation, the other was a peacekeeping mission with a limited rescue mission, both of which were under the constraints of ridiculous rules of engagement.

Same goes for Iraq today.

Which I try and tell you over and over again that unconventional warfare can do well against conventional powerfull militarys.

You know I've never denied that.

Both the Viet Cong and the Patriots used Gurrelia warfare, Both were supplied by super powers. They are very similar, allthough the Patriots didn't use such Brutal tactics.

Yes. But in Vietnam, the US military didn't have the permission to conquer the other. The British did in the American Revolution, and therefore they didn't have to use as much restraint as the US did.

But at the same time, I never said that the British defeat in the American Revolution meant that they were a poor military. The British would have defeated any conventional military in the same situation, and the America revolutionaries would have defeated any conventional military in that situation also. It didn't reflect negatively on the quality of the British forces.

But some people in this thread suggested that Vietnam and Somalia reflect negatively on the US military with regards to fighting other militaries, which is of course, complete ignorance.

CELLARDOOR & GRAMMAR!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you two? You're arguing over a thread THAT SHOULD'VE ENDED 3 PAGES AGO!!

You're both pathetic pieces of shit because you're both acting like fucking kids. My 3 year old nephew is more fucking mature than both of you put together and he's got ADHD for fuck sake.

Will some mod please lock this thread it's turned into a bitch fight.

America wins, nuff said. Everything else is irrelevent.

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

america... we are the best in the world!

At 1/28/08 09:27 PM, Grammer wrote: Haha cellar, you loser. You can't win the debate, so you attack me personally (again)

Lol, you already completely stopped talking about the topic. YOU lost, and YOU based your entire arugment around insults from the beginning.

You're such a close-minded fuck that you can't acknowledge that you lose nearly every debate you've been in.

Ahaha

Grammer, now you're just lying. Either that or you're just plain hallucinating.

At least I'm not an unemployed, Mormon half-terrorist. Hahaha

You know, it's pretty funny how you lose arguments and immediately devolve into a bigoted, racist psychopath.

Happens every single time. You always get into an argument you can't handle, you get meticulously proved wrong, you embarass yourself, so you compensate... either by completely changing the subject, lying your way out, or running away to talk trash in other threads to cope.

Oh. and by the way, by "unemployed" I don't answer to anyone. I already graduated from college, and still have a job, I trade stocks. And I'm pretty sure I make a whole hell of a lot more money than you do.

Oh btw, the flash I made in my sig is just for you, half terrorist scum.

Interesting.

you guys do realise africa has an military . and since you said assume everyone has the same amount my list looks like this .

U.S.A
Russia
Uk
France
Africa
Isreal

correct my ignorance if im wrong but if africa is in any relevance of another country please tell me

Lol.

Someone needs their pills.

At 1/29/08 01:37 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/29/08 12:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol.

Someone needs their pills.

What kind of drugs do you take as a schizo?

None, because I'm not schizo.

At 1/28/08 11:04 PM, biozombiex wrote: you guys do realise africa has an military

Africa is made up of several countries, but there is something called the African Union which is a military alliance.

But it's not all of Africa.

correct my ignorance if im wrong but if africa is in any relevance of another country please tell me

Um... Africa is a continent. And their militaries are all crap.

At 1/28/08 11:04 PM, biozombiex wrote: you guys do realise africa has an military . and since you said assume everyone has the same
correct my ignorance if im wrong but if africa is in any relevance of another country please tell me

;
I looked up & found 47 countries on the African continent.
There's 53 countries if you include the island nations that are very close to it. this number changes because not all sources include all the island nations.

But if you lump all of Africa together then the U.S. would just get its ass kicked to pieces.
Sure they could bomb it, & put standing warships off of much of its coast but they wouldn't have a military presence anywhere else on the planet.
They could neve take the continent on the ground.
They would be eatin' alive. literally there are so many starving people there , dead soldiers would become a food source.

If you don't hold the ground your not in control.

We have all seen the massive problem the U.S. military has in meeting it's world commitments & all they are involved in now is Iraq & Afganistan & they have help in both places.

They would have to totally withdraw From everything everywhere to take on the whole continent, they could control small pockets but they would be under constant guerilla tactics & a great deal of Africa makes the jungles of Vietnam look like a Disney Park.
Somali's & others would be dragging American bodies in the streets on the news nightly.

At 1/29/08 01:17 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Maybe he can use his time off to develope a real ion cannon.

I'm not trying to rub my nose in it or anything but is it wrong of me to laugh and say "Grammar, I told you so"?

At 1/29/08 01:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/28/08 11:04 PM, biozombiex wrote: you guys do realise africa has an military . and since you said assume everyone has the same
correct my ignorance if im wrong but if africa is in any relevance of another country please tell me

;
I looked up & found 47 countries on the African continent.
There's 53 countries if you include the island nations that are very close to it. this number changes because not all sources include all the island nations.

But if you lump all of Africa together then the U.S. would just get its ass kicked to pieces.

Lol, what are you talking about? That's quite a hefty claim there.

You know, the amount of countries doesn't matter.

Look at the EU. It is made up of 27 mostly powerful and prosperous nations. Yet the EU in its entirety only has 10% of the military capability the US has.

Now, it doesn't matter if Africa had 200 countries, it would still be incapable of repelling a US attack. If the EU, having twice as many people, consisting of 27 countries is that inferior to the US, then Africa would have absolutely no hope.

Sure they could bomb it, & put standing warships off of much of its coast but they wouldn't have a military presence anywhere else on the planet.

What kind of a war are you talking about? There is no conceivable scenario where the US would want to occupy every square mile of Africa. The US wouldn't even need to do that to control Africa.

They could neve take the continent on the ground.

We couldn't occupy the whole thing, but we wouldn't have to. We could certainly take over the most important cities, and destroy all of their military forces.

If you don't hold the ground your not in control.

Wrong.

If your objectives are to destroy an enemy force, or exert power, you don't need to occupy or control the ground, you only need to control the most important assets.

We have all seen the massive problem the U.S. military has in meeting it's world commitments & all they are involved in now is Iraq & Afganistan & they have help in both places.

What are you talking about?

Only a fraction of the US military is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America's combat power is basically unaffected. The US makes almost no use of its high-end assets in Iraq.

The US could fight and win a large regional war right now, regardless of what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan.

They would have to totally withdraw From everything everywhere to take on the whole continent, they could control small pockets but they would be under constant guerilla tactics & a great deal of Africa makes the jungles of Vietnam look like a Disney Park.

Wishful thinking on your part, again.

The US could completely and utterly defeat the combined forces of Africa so easily that it's just hilarious you'd suggest otherwise.

The US however could not occupy all of Africa. But you're wrong if you think this would need to be done, or that this is the only kind of war that would take place.

Somali's & others would be dragging American bodies in the streets on the news nightly.

I'm sure the thought gives you wood, but you don't know what you're talking about. Just because you want something like that to happen, doesn't mean it would.

If the US military was allowed to destroy the African combined forces, it would require little to no ground forces. It would be COMPLETELY dissimilar from Somalia, where the US used enormous restraint and was NEVER allowed to use full force.

You're taking an issue out of context and applying it to a completely different possible situation, with entirely different dynamics.

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc.

One statistic that has popped up lately, is the "250,000 rounds per insurgent killed" in Iraq. How well trained do you have to be to use 250,000 rounds to kill one person? I guess it may help in justifying the cost of war, but certainly not the quality of soldier. Something else I found was that 30% of your humvees in Iraq have factory installed armor. Leaving 70% to be outfitted with (armor) metal from humvees that didn't make it by soldiers who weren't sent there to install armor.
87% of your medium and heavyweight trucks (used to transport soldiers and supplies) in war torn Iraq and Afghanistan have no armor.

I can't say who is the best trained and best equipped, but considering these findings, I can't say it's the USA.

At 1/27/08 05:08 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/27/08 03:28 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The question was over who has the best military, and if you say the US does not, then who does?

I already gave an answer - Russia and China. I also gave reasons.

We've got the most well-trained soldiers, the most money to supply them, and insane amounts of technology. I don't know of any recent wars that we lost, actually.

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US, and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.

At 1/30/08 10:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US,

They did? as I recall no real end to the conflict ever occurred, but North Vietnamese fatalities were much higher.
and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.
Extenuating circumstances, if the Germans had attacked in the spring/summer and not had the war going on three fronts. Russia would have been completely boned.

At 1/30/08 10:24 AM, Hyperwave wrote:

At 1/30/08 10:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US,

They did? as I recall no real end to the conflict ever occurred, but North Vietnamese fatalities were much higher.

World War II losses:
United Kingdom: 47,760,000
Germany: 69,623,000
Japan: 71,380,000
United States: 131,028,000
Soviet Union: 168,500,000

Does that mean the US and USSR lost WWII because their losses were higher than Germany and Japan's?

and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.
Extenuating circumstances, if the Germans had attacked in the spring/summer and not had the war going on three fronts. Russia would have been completely boned.

The Germand launched the attack on the 22nd June, 1941. That's summer, isn't it?

At 1/30/08 10:32 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
World War II losses:
United Kingdom: 47,760,000
Germany: 69,623,000
Japan: 71,380,000
United States: 131,028,000
Soviet Union: 168,500,000

I'm calling bullshit on your stats. There's no way in HELL the US suffered 100 million losses. You must be looking at a BS report or the wrong column on a graph or something.....

At 1/30/08 10:32 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

World War II losses:
United Kingdom: 47,760,000
Germany: 69,623,000
Japan: 71,380,000
United States: 131,028,000
Soviet Union: 168,500,000

Ah hahahaha

You are aware of that the collective amount of soldiers of WW2 didn't exceed 100 million?

Besides, The ENTIRE US population was 131,028,000. The real casualty number for soldiers from the US was 416,800.

In other words; 0,32% of the population, not 100%

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US, and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.

Well hang on there cowboy. You see now, your winners there, the vietcong. They had 800,000 KIA, and 300,000 MIA. While the US "only" had 58,209 KIA and 1,948 MIA. While they didnt see the war through, they did stop the spread of communism to countries like Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia etc. And c'mon, where is the Vietcong now? gone.

And about the germans in russia. Russia is a really big place, with a shit load of people. Germany had a significant lower death toll. Tactically the Germans had won some resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the country. They where unable to mount more attacks on the soviet-german front. They underestimated the russians. While they invaded in the summer, as soon as winter came the germans where not prepared, and the harsh weather made getting supplies to the battle hard. While the germans didnt take all of russia, it wasnt because they didnt have the tech, its because they lacked manpower, and got cocky.

At 1/30/08 10:02 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc.

One statistic that has popped up lately, is the "250,000 rounds per insurgent killed" in Iraq. How well trained do you have to be to use 250,000 rounds to kill one person? I guess it may help in justifying the cost of war, but certainly not the quality of soldier.

You don't know what you're talking about, and of course you applied no context.

250,000 bullets per insurgent killed is not odd at all given the nature of the war. It's an insurgency/counter-insurgency. The enemy doesn't show itself, and it's not like every time an insurgent was spotted, 250,000 rounds were fired at him. Bullets are used for more than direct fire, they are used for suppression, and the use of machine guns fortifies this.

Something else I found was that 30% of your humvees in Iraq have factory installed armor. Leaving 70% to be outfitted with (armor) metal from humvees that didn't make it by soldiers who weren't sent there to install armor.
87% of your medium and heavyweight trucks (used to transport soldiers and supplies) in war torn Iraq and Afghanistan have no armor.

1) That was in 2004, right after the war began. Nice try.

2) Iraq was a departure from typical war doctrine. In previously conceived wars, Humvees and heavy-hauling trucks didn't need armor and actually needed to NOT be armoredb ecause they were logistical, transportation items that needed to be lighter and were unlikely to see combat given the ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF TANKS AND ARMORED VEHICLES THE US HAS.

3) The US evolved and augmented our forces to meet the needs of our troops. This can be shown by the fact that thousands and thousands of MRAP (mine-resistant, ambush-protected) vehicles have been ordered and are flooding Iraq right now.

3) Despite this, some tacticians argue that the added weight and nature of armored vehicles is actually counter-productive.

I can't say who is the best trained and best equipped, but considering these findings, I can't say it's the USA.

I always think it's hilarious when you talk about military issues.

At 1/30/08 10:32 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: World War II losses:

WWII military losses

United Kingdom: 47,760,000

382,000

Germany: 69,623,000

5.5 million

Japan: 71,380,000

2 million

United States: 131,028,000

407,000

Soviet Union: 168,500,000

10 million

Does that mean the US and USSR lost WWII because their losses were higher than Germany and Japan's?

Wow! You just posted the populations. And even though it's obvious you thought you were posting casualties, you're wrong either way.

The US had pretty low casualties considering it was the only country to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan, while fighting Japan basically single-handedly.

The Soviets had such high casualties because they had horrible tactics, they used their soldiers as expendable human waves.

I guess it's true that you literally can never provide a coherent, honest argument.

At 1/29/08 01:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote: If you don't hold the ground your not in control.

We have all seen the massive problem the U.S. military has in meeting it's world commitments & all they are involved in now is Iraq & Afganistan & they have help in both places.

;
Sorry Guy's I had a ASAP call to work yesterday & didn't get to finish what I wanted to post here.
Afghanistan is about 647,500 sq kms - a little smaller than Texas
Iraq is about 437,72 sq kms- about twice the size of Idaho
Africa is 30,365,700 sq kms
The entire United States is 9,161,923 sq kms

Africa is 3 times larger & then some on the U.S.
We have all seen how much trouble the United States & its allies have had in these 2 small countries.
How can any of you think for 1 second that the U.S. could somehow take this on & win.
there are 700,000,000+ people with hundreds of armies, militia's & rebel groups, Best military or not
Will mean nothing in a mess like this. They are in my opinion safe from any one country being able to subjugate them. I don't even think the allied group that is involved in Iraq/Afghanistan could either.

United states, no question.

Yes, theres vietnam and iraq, but thats not so much a matter of them lacking in military than the goals of the 2 engaging forces not being the same.

At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/29/08 01:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote: If you don't hold the ground your not in control.

We have all seen the massive problem the U.S. military has in meeting it's world commitments & all they are involved in now is Iraq & Afganistan & they have help in both places.

;
Sorry Guy's I had a ASAP call to work yesterday & didn't get to finish what I wanted to post here.
Afghanistan is about 647,500 sq kms - a little smaller than Texas
Iraq is about 437,72 sq kms- about twice the size of Idaho
Africa is 30,365,700 sq kms
The entire United States is 9,161,923 sq kms

All irrelevant.

Africa is 3 times larger & then some on the U.S.

And has basically no capability to defend against a US conventional military attack. The US would have no incentive to occupy them. If the combined forces of Africa fought the US, they would lose. There is no doubt about it. Even the combined forces of the EU and its 27 countries with 500 million people, only amounts to 10% of the military capability the US has.

The US could EASILY defeat the combined military forces of Africa.

Oh and by the way.

We have all seen how much trouble the United States & its allies have had in these 2 small countries.

Lol.

1) Iraq and Afghanistan are counter-insurgencyies, not conventional wars.

2) In neither Iraq nore Afghanistan can the enemy tactically defeat the US. It's impossible, the US and its allies are in power, control the most important assets.

3) The "trouble" in these two countries is far more political than military.

How can any of you think for 1 second that the U.S. could somehow take this on & win.

How can you somehow think that it would require a complete occupation of Africa to defeat Africa's militaries?

there are 700,000,000+ people with hundreds of armies, militia's & rebel groups, Best military or not
Will mean nothing in a mess like this.

You keep looking at the issue in the most narrow of parameters.

The US would never have to deploy ground forces to occupy the jungles and grasslands of Africa in order to destroy a combined African military. And the combined forces of Africa would never be able to do anything but meagerly defend their own territory anyway, do you think Africans could ever reach across the world to the US and project their force there? Notice how unbalanced your entire argument is in the first place?

In a argument about military superiority, you completely right off the entire spectrum of the issue, and instead only care to look at what you WANT to be the case... a scenario where the US would somehow have to take all of Africa.

1. Texas
2. Flordia
3....
Oh wait we're doing the entire world..
1. Texas
2..

Haha, just kidding. In all seriousness though the United States has so much Tech and well equiped soldiers that it's really not even close. I was looking up aircraft carriers on the internet and was surprised that so few countries had (real) aircraft carriers, and not even in any sizable number, which I think are a pretty important part of being able to use your military in places other than home. I know someone will likey say "well lol they don't need to go anywhere else", but in a situation such as just repelling an agressor may not be enough to stop them. The 1-10s list are more of a challange though.

Hmm... yep, definitively the US. Absolute superiority.
And, to be honest, I'm quite happy about that - I mean, imagine a country like Russia or China take over the "world leadership" - let alone any crazy islamic country!

But I think a big part of the strenght of the US armed forces origines in their air-superiority. I mean, imagine a war of the US without air-superiority... phew, that would be a hard time for the ground forces.
I mean, I've served one year in our army (Austrian army... *sigh* - but at least we got great guns - oh and we're good at mountain-combat, what a surprise ^^), and so I understand a little bit of military tactics. And whoever wins the air superiority, gains the control and the initiative.

And a WWII in Europe without the absolute superiority in the sky for the US... the fights would have been fought quite different. Of course, I'm happy that it didn't happen that way - the communists would have even gotten farther into the heart of Europe... *shiver*

However, have a nice day.

Best military? US hands down. Every other army are like bugs compared to the US army.

At 1/30/08 04:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I always think it's hilarious when you talk about military issues.

I find it hilarious how you run around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to justify shit like 250,000 rounds spent per insurgent killed.

At 1/30/08 10:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one? Money and technology have little meaning in war - the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US, and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia, but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay off.

We did not lose the Vietnam War. US involvement ended with the Paris Peace Accord. After the US left, North Vietnam broke its agreement and took Saigon.

We were supposed to assist with air support according to the Accords, but we didn't because the war seemed as if it would never end, seeing as how it went for over 10 years.