1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it.
3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies"

1,160,000

__________________________________________________ ___________________



I Think American will be drawn into a war.....but near the middle east area....but near 38th Parallel....A War with North Korea...which may eventually cause a chainreaction which will also bring China into it.

China doesnt worry me much...besides the Nuc. Weapons....All they have going for them is numbers...Their militaryand economy is in shambles like the russian military...and the Russians arnt even "commies" anymore...China would be fighting with allies that couldnt defend a hamburger stand.

[quote="-Blitzer-":05dd8]1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it.
3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies"

1,160,000

__________________________________________________ __________________



[/quote:05dd8]

I believe the exact quote was "all Russian weapons are useless".
as far as I know useless equipment does not kill 58, 000 people.

PS. The Russian equipment is mostly good to decent, its the Chinese knockoffs that fall apart after 5 shots (but then again so does most anything made in China biggrin: )

[quote="-Blitzer-":80aba]1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it.
3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies"

1,160,000

__________________________________________________ ___________________
[/quote:80aba]

1. And "charlie" killed quite a few americans in vietnam.

2. Wouldn't say so, the m16 back then was basically a piece of shit which was VERY sensitive to dust and dirt. The AK-47 could get mucked up left and right and still function properly, basically it suited the environemnt more and was a better weapon because of that. Today though im not sure what is the better weapon, the ak-74 is a big improvement over the 47 and the m16-a2 is obviously a big improvement over the prototype m-16.

3. And still they kept coming. Doesn't really matter how much they lost they were fanatics and kept coming and coming. I don't think america could have won that war short of dropping nukes on the country.

One must also note that we never fought a competent foe armed with Soviet weaponary.

Opfor (aka "red team") seems to be doing a good job kicking butt with captured Soviet equipment in simulated combat. Even though they are only trying to train not own blue team, they still beat them up pretty hard.

[quote:d3766]the Stalin series were better than Tigers,
T-34s were better than MkIII and IV,
I'll take an IL-2 over a Stunka bomber any day,
the Yak 3 could beat a messershit with one gun tied behind its back.[/quote:d3766]
Tiger II kicked the shit out of the IS class
Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's
Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also
Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943
FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks
Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine?
Ever read about the Soviet space programme?
How is the modern Russian military doing?
Ever heard of a LAGG 3?

The AK-47 is not "badly deisnged", I'd say its far better designed than the M4. Simple, reliable, cheap, fairly accurate.

The reason why all AK-47 armed enemies never manage to kill is that they know not how to use a gun. Alfa team of Spetznaz uses AK-74s and other soviet wepaonry, and it has supposedly never lost a man in tis counter-terrorist ops.


BLITZ- German weaponry is soo superior, thats why they won. *sarcasm*

The tiger II was a heavy piece of shit

[quote:eb342]Tiger II kicked the shit out of the IS class
Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's
Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also
Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943
FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks
Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine?
Ever read about the Soviet space programme?
How is the modern Russian military doing?
Ever heard of a LAGG 3?
[/quote:eb342]
Tiger II no way could defeat it, they couldn't even target the bloody things, and what, there were like 10 made? King TIgers, anyone can tell you that knows their ass from their ears, are pieces of shit

Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE. IS-2s could beat the crpa out of them. Your saying that tigers could kill T34s, sure, if the T34 is stationary, then the round could technically penetrate it if it doesn't bounce off, but since when is a medium tank gonna kill a heavy tank? Your saying in an lesser exxageraed way "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams"

Pz 4s DIED to ANY T34, KV1, or anything with a semblence of firepower, what the fuck are you smoking? Sure, it might defeat a BT-5, but thats from the bloody 20s

About the FW190 thing- thast why the luftwaffe completely lost any air superiority on the eastern front- because it had better airplanes?

The kursk submarine was a fuckup, but an isolated one.

You moron, dod you know that the russian space program was the firts to get into space? Do you know that most ISS personel are Russian? idiot, read a fucking book, get off the computer and get a fuckign education, please

Ever heard of the XP-50?

Tiger II kicked the shit out of the IS class
Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's
Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also
Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943
FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks
Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine?
Ever read about the Soviet space programme?
How is the modern Russian military doing?
Ever heard of a LAGG 3?[/quote:40401]

1. not from what I read
2. you're comparing heavy tanks with medium tanks dumbass
3. the T-34/85 was superior in firepower and equal in armor
4. sure, is this the same 40mm max armor MkIV I know about?
5. play IL-2, it was created using REAL DATA FROM RUSSIAN AND GERMAN FLIGHT TESTS, the Yak is far superior and the FW flies like a brick.
6. we may never know what happened aboard her
7. hey they beat us into space
8. lack of funding does not mean crappy designs


try to refute these nazi boy.

Chechnya statistics- 5,000 Russian KIA
~1,000,000 chechen killed

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

He asked about the condition of the RUssian Military, those figures imply that they are "pwning" chechens ;)

Hey, we're both against blitz :D

[quote="Sgt Stryker":4a537]
1. not from what I read.[/quote:4a537]
[quote:4a537]There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat.[/quote:4a537]
[quote:4a537]"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner,
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,
East Germany, April of 1945. [/quote:4a537][quote:4a537]2. you're comparing heavy tanks with medium tanks dumbass[/quote:4a537]
Yeah, and you compared a T-34 to a Pz Kmf III, which is a much smaller and lighter tank you dumb sack of inbred faggotry
[quote:4a537]3. the T-34/85 was superior in firepower and equal in armor[/quote:4a537]
Actually the 75mm on the Panther had more penetration power than the Tiger's 88mm.
Panther's armour:
Front Turret: 110/11
Front Upper Hull: 80/55
Front Lower Hull: 60/55
Side Turret: 45/25
Side Upper Hull: 50/30
Side Lower Hull: 40/0
Rear Turret: 45/25
Rear Lower Hull: 40/30
Turret Top / Bottom: 16/84 / 16/90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 40/90 / 16/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 30/90 / 16/90
Gun Mantlet: 100/round
Also the Panther could take out targets from 2,000
[quote:4a537]4. sure, is this the same 40mm max armor MkIV I know about?[/quote:4a537]
No, the the 50mm max armour MkIV!
[quote:4a537]5. play IL-2, it was created using REAL DATA FROM RUSSIAN AND GERMAN FLIGHT TESTS, the Yak is far superior and the FW flies like a brick.[/quote:4a537]
Yeah dumbass that's what happens when you don't figure out that it is best to use a Zoom n' Boom tactic instead of dogfighting when using a FW 190 like a dripwad. Also I should have mentioned the "D" variant was one of the best prop airplanes of the war.
[quote:4a537]6. we may never know what happened aboard her [/quote:4a537]
We already know, well, mayber you don't.
[quote:4a537]try to refute these nazi boy.[/quote:4a537]
I did RFOLMAO evil:

Got any sources for that? And I'd be willing to bet a good number of those were civilians.

Tiger II no way could defeat it, they couldn't even target the bloody things, and what, there were like 10 made? King TIgers, anyone can tell you that knows their ass from their ears, are pieces of shit

Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE. IS-2s could beat the crpa out of them. Your saying that tigers could kill T34s, sure, if the T34 is stationary, then the round could technically penetrate it if it doesn't bounce off, but since when is a medium tank gonna kill a heavy tank? Your saying in an lesser exxageraed way "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams"

[/quote]


eek:

Can i have some of what you're smoking? The tiger tank was probably the best tank of ww2, the only reason the t-34 was any good against it was because it had sloped armour which could deflect the shells.

The king tiger although slow was armoured like a fucking battleship, there was only like 2 king tigers left to defend berlin and they raped their fair share of t34's before getting destroyed through numerical superiority of their opponents.

499 Tiger II's were produced.
[quote:ec375]Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE.[/quote:ec375]
The Tiger I was one of the most maneuverable tanks. Haven't you ever read a book?
[quote:ec375]Pz 4s DIED to ANY T34, KV1, or anything with a semblence of firepower, what the fuck are you smoking? Sure, it might defeat a BT-5, but thats from the bloody 20s[/quote:ec375]
Well considering the fact firstly that a machine cannot "DIE", the T-26, T-27, T-40, T-50, and T-60 were easy meat for any german tank. Also the KV-1 is a heavy tank so comparing it to a medium tank is like saying "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams" While we are talking about KV's, why not mention the KV-2 built so shitty that it's turret couldn't rotate if it was on an incline.
[quote:ec375]About the FW190 thing- thast why the luftwaffe completely lost any air superiority on the eastern front- because it had better airplanes?[/quote:ec375]
More likely because they were outnumbered 3:1.
[quote:ec375]You moron, dod you know that the russian space program was the firts to get into space? Do you know that most ISS personel are Russian? idiot, read a fucking book, get off the computer and get a fuckign education, please [/quote:ec375]
An education like yours? Yeah they were the first to get into space, but have you ever read about their failures and how they covered them up?
[quote:ec375]The kursk submarine was a fuckup, but an isolated one.[/quote:ec375]
That's like saying Bush bieng a moron is an isolated incident. I could dig up quite an array of soviet naval blunders if you wish. Also the retaking of a Theatre and killing 112 HOSTAGES sounds like yet another resounding success.

Don't start with the country vs country shit, every country makes fuck ups including america.