WWIII Scenario

[AZN_FLEA]

i understand that whoever has more:numbers,advanced tech,cruelty usually wins.
as for the fighter planes if the US has more planes they can beat russia. imagine 30:10, this means that one russian has to kill at least 3 americans. this is unlikly. the fuel capacity of the russians has to be superior and the number of missiles are limited. so u c that tussia is disadvantaged.
LMAO imagine china if they focused purely on their airforce. they will prolly be unstoppable. there is about 16 million in chinas army right? if a quarter converts to air then china can pave a way for an invasion from their ships/

 

[Pale_Horse]

OMG could you imagine the fuel cost of that lol

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by Lights
Su-27's do not "own" F-18's by any stretch of the imagination.
Migs and F-15's are considered by most to be nearly equal. :\

[glow=red]Yes they do, also read this. Might make you a bit smarter.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/313-9.cfm[/glow]

 

[Sogeking]

it pains me to say this, but this thread is in some SERIOUS voiding. Or at least cut in half or SOMETHING. there is way too much ww2 and mig vs f 18(whtver) going on in here. Maybe you could be talking about farfetched futuristic fighter jets instead

oh btw,

Why do you[both] debate which is better when neither[combat planes] have taken the skies 1v1? none of us are mechanincs, military strategists, etc. so how do we know who would win in a fight? Sure, a biased website says the su-27 will own the f-18, where as another says they are quite even. But have any of you seen these jets in combat?

yes yes yes, mock battles the russian mig won to the f 15, but i didnt see many mock battles vs the new us fighter have you? and it all comes down to what happend in ww2. the russians should know this. Quantity over quality. millions of russians running into direct fire of a german machine gun...though dumb and idiotic, they won their front and took most of berlin.

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]I liked you more then you had a squerell for a sig.[/glow]

 

[AZN_FLEA]

yo i was playing a ww2 game and i found the term "stealth" on one su-27s. what is stealth? i know it has something to do with complex shape/ but what does it do? does steal;th make the plane invisible to the enemy radar?
in case some of you accuse this post of going off thread the f-117 and some su-27s are stealth

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

it pains me to say this, but this thread is in some SERIOUS voiding.

No, there is still a debate with some degree of intellegence. Azn_flea is talking quite coherrently and may become a very good intellegent poster. (If he does, he should get a award. Most improved user award.

Maybe you could be talking about farfetched futuristic fighter jets instead

Maybe, but I don't think WW3 is going to be too far off. Don't you agree? But it might not happen for some time.

Sure, a biased website says the su-27 will own the f-18, where as another says they are quite even. But have any of you seen these jets in combat?

Please link me to one that does (with mention of mock simulations.).

the russians should know this. Quantity over quality.

If you have nearly the same amount you should win with the better trained troops ect. The Russians didn't have much of a choice, they knew that the more you send in the quicker the enemy gets killed (plus it makes them crap them selves when they see the numbers), if they send a few at a time it would of taken longer (more chance of them reinforcing) and would of been easier for the Germans to defeat each 'saquadron'.

yo i was playing a ww2 game and i found the term "stealth" on one su-27s. what is stealth? i know it has something to do with complex shape/ but what does it do? does steal;th make the plane invisible to the enemy radar?

Don't worry, anything you post like this is on-topic , I hardly think anyone will fault you on your posts that aren't about pride. Now to understand it better you have to realise what Radar does and why they do what they do to stop it from detecting them. A Radar simply sends out a pulse, and when that pulse hits something it bounces off and returns to the Radar station. Now firstly, you can use Radar absorbing paint, does what it says on the tin, it is supposed to absord a radar pulse so it can't return back the radar station and give away the position of the aircraft. Now the whole thing to do with the shapes is to design the shape of the aircraft so it's radar signal is minimal, so what they do is use shapes that will reflect the radar pulse but in a different direction so it is advised to avoid any right angles as they reflect it right back. Now another way to be stealthy' is to lower your heat signature.This is usually done by channeling the engine exhaust through long tubes and mixing it with cooler outside air. Keeping noise down is also very important especially on subs. If a airplane keeps very low (this may be somewhat outdated) radar clutterence from ground objects can keep it from being detected, I recall a training exercise, the Americans were to defend a base (they had radar), the British were to destroy it, a vulcan bomber flew low and bombed the American base before they knew what hit them. There are many ways of being stealthy but you should really look up a good site for that stuff, I am no real expert.

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
No, there is still a debate with some degree of intellegence.

No, this is a ww3 discussion, discussing ww2 is not ww3. maybe if you were using ww2 as a cause of sorts, maybe but it is not. Some of the fighter/bomber debate is debatable(here) because some are of this decade. but not because others are from ww2/cold war and who in their right mind is going to use a spitfire in a battle with a f-15 or mig?

Maybe, but I don't think WW3 is going to be too far off. Don't you agree?

i dont agree with that statement. another war will be far off because individual countries are not expanding imperalistic empires. But it is possible because corporations are expanding their buisness empires. I have said this before, the next world war will not be fought between countries, even though they might back up a corporation, but between buisness empires that have conflicting prospects. Currently though, we do have laws and taxes that help stop this from happening, but as soon as the laws and taxes are lifted or changed, the corporations will grow out of control. Remember, greed is what the british and spanish fought over durring the early imperialist eras. Greed is why the native americans were forced to live on reservations, greed is what corporations have, and if they get too greedy and are not controled, then they WILL fight for what they want....kinda a long replay :-/

If you have nearly the same amount you should win with the better trained troops ect.

No, you shouldnt. You should win because of the better materials. If japan had an equal navy/infantry/airforce as the us with their own technology, they would have won because US tech was(and might just as well still be) weaker than the japanese. Better trained troops in the weapons they use, but im assuming you meant better trained troops in the art of killing, not the art of how to fly a jet or plan a battle. Morale has something to do with it too. Durring the police action in vietnam, the Us left vietnam due to morale problems. Oh, on another note, thanks to people like john kerry, the vietcong "won" the police action. If you dont believe me, read their(vietcong's) leaders memoirs, he specifically says that people like john kerry helped them "win" the police action in vietnam.

The Russians didn't have much of a choice

the russians could have done other things then send wave after wave of units at the german guns. They could have 'bought' more guns from the neutral nations at the time or maybe not send so many people to war and instead build more and better weapons. But hey, their strategy was outdated as of ww1.

Don't worry, anything you post like this is on-topic

Prove it

Now to understand it better you have to realise what Radar does and why they do what they do to stop it from detecting them. A Radar simply sends out a pulse, and when that pulse hits something it bounces off and returns to the Radar station. I am no real expert.

im no real expert at radar technology, but i am aware of other types of radar than eccosound(sp?) technology that bats and dolphins use. There are heat, sound, and other types of radar as well. But i am no expert and dont know that much about radars other than the names of the few i have mentioned. If we are talking about current radar, we now have sattelite uplinks that are 1000x better than any radar we have right now.

I like debating with you orc, you dont say stuff like, YOUR A FCKING DUMBASS!!111 or NO YOUR WRONG I HATE YOU AND WANT YOU TO BURN IN HELL!!!111. or, IM RIGHT IM RIGHT IM RIGHT method

 

[AZN_FLEA]

nice explanation orc.
i think ww3 is gonna come in the next few decades or so because the muslim naations must be extremely pissed with USA right now and the relation with china and the US isnt great. i dont know if russia like the US or not but ww3 is gonna involve alot of ataks on the US. terrorists are gonna seize ww3 as an opprtunity to terrorize the US

 

[Sogeking]

holy crap! how can you be so dumb? muslims definitly dont all hate americans! in fact, in one of the conquered towns in iraq(at least one) citizens were offering dinner to the us and other coalition forces. of course, the press doesnt want you to know that....now for the select few muslims fighting, the rest of the muslim nation will eventually react and shut them up themselves. but i think that we (the us) need to be tough parents and let the middle east work out their own problems. of course we can offer a solution but we shouldnt force it on them.

why would china attack us? no, better yet, HOW would china attack us? "oh they can shoot missiles at us!!!" well before long we will have an anti missile program. http://fas.org/spp/starwars/
no, china wouldnt attack the US

Russia isnt communist anymore. there are little to no grudge between the USA and RUSSIA. Besides, the russians are in an econmomic slump and just beggining to rise from it. (gj to u guys btw)

by the time a ww3 is possible, men like osama bin laden and kim ji il(i think) of north korea will be long dead(btw, osama has diabetes so i doubt he will live much longer) without a leader terrorists will do didly squat. And i REALLY doubt the US will be attacked anytime soon(that goes for just about all 1st, 2nd and most 3rd world countries) ww3 like i have said time and time again will involve corporations. if you dont believe me too bad.

and why would you believe me on the corporations? because they have MONEY and will have money for a long time

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]Ofcourse Muslims hate you. You killed a lot of innocent civilians and taken even more to prisons, without any evidence, after that you interegate them. Muslims hate you, and they are right to hate you. You done only bad to them.[/glow]

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

No, this is a ww3 discussion, discussing ww2 is not ww3. maybe if you were using ww2 as a cause of sorts, maybe but it is not. Some of the fighter/bomber debate is debatable(here) because some are of this decade. but not because others are from ww2/cold war and who in their right mind is going to use a spitfire in a battle with a f-15 or mig?

Well, you could say it is interconnected, it is a major war and it gives us a grasp on the ideas nations came up with when desperate, ww2 proved that for some countries war it good, it brought America out of the great depression and revived it's economy. F-15s are still used today but that doesn't really matter, ww2 is a good thing to think about while discussing a next great war. Good answer was your next paragraph, countries still go at war, maybe there is a unapparent threat and we will be ignorant of it. All that needs to happen is a stronger country attacks a fairly weak country with a lot of allies. It could be caused by 'misinformation'(or 'misleading' information or whatever you want to call it), without a full (which was stupid) investagation your whole nation was prepared to go to war on the basis that they had WMD and that was the main reason. I wouldn't say buissness's will tkae over just yet .

No, you shouldnt.

When I said ect, I meant better materials tech, tactics and training. And you are right. Unless the Japaneese can be out numbered by a large factor. Or tactics are completely flawed

Oh, on another note, thanks to people like john kerry, the vietcong "won" the police action. If you dont believe me, read their(vietcong's) leaders memoirs, he specifically says that people like john kerry helped them "win" the police action in vietnam.

Why do I care about John Kerry, do you mean he helped them win in the eyes of the pubic? If so that doesn't matter. He did get medals and shit.

the russians could have done other things then send wave after wave of units at the german guns. They could have 'bought' more guns from the neutral nations at the time or maybe not send so many people to war and instead build more and better weapons. But hey, their strategy was outdated as of ww1.

The Russians were getting weapons on a lend lease basis, they made extremely good mid weight tanks. They wanted to get to Berlin before the allied so they had to do things fast.

Prove it

Every time he posts in the thread he becomes more coherrent, and if it makes him a better poster and he stops this "OmFg AzN Prid0z" then I think a few threads a bit off-topic is worth it .

If we are talking about current radar, we now have sattelite uplinks that are 1000x better than any radar we have right now.

You could put all that stuff on a radar station, a lot of countries don't have satellite and I wouldn't expect thermal ect to be too effective. I still think for defence I would pick radar, for whether..

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Well, you could say it is interconnected, it is a major war and it gives us a grasp on the ideas nations came up with when desperate, ww2 proved that for some countries war it good, it brought America out of the great depression and revived it's economy. F-15s are still used today but that doesn't really matter, ww2 is a good thing to think about while discussing a next great war. Good answer was your next paragraph, countries still go at war, maybe there is a unapparent threat and we will be ignorant of it. All that needs to happen is a stronger country attacks a fairly weak country with a lot of allies. It could be caused by 'misinformation'(or 'misleading' information or whatever you want to call it), without a full (which was stupid) investagation your whole nation was prepared to go to war on the basis that they had WMD and that was the main reason. I wouldn't say buissness's will tkae over just yet .

Very good points. I knew about how ww2 can help connect to another great war that may possibly come up, but what i meant is that why are wed discussing what would happen today if the russians were not in the war or if the uk lost at x battle or if the germans did this or that, etc. that has little to do with now because we know what happend and you cant change it. Maybe if we were building off of that....

When I said ect, I meant better materials tech, tactics and training. And you are right. Unless the Japaneese can be out numbered by a large factor. Or tactics are completely flawed

Ok gotcha

The Russians were getting weapons on a lend lease basis, they made extremely good mid weight tanks. They wanted to get to Berlin before the allied so they had to do things fast. [/B]

yes they were, but eventually they had weapons because durring the cold war they would have massive weapons parades and such. but dont you agree that if they hadnt of sent all their troops to battle and actually hold a position and have a good quarter of their army working on tanks/planes/weapons the russians would have won faster? you have to remember that the russians had one of the best spy agencies in the world at the time. with weapons they would have been a force to reckon with.(and as otmorozok will undoubtedly reply, they were)

Every time he posts in the thread he becomes more coherrent, and if it makes him a better poster and he stops this "OmFg AzN Prid0z" then I think a few threads a bit off-topic is worth it .[/B]

maybe he could post in chitchat for that

You could put all that stuff on a radar station, a lot of countries don't have satellite and I wouldn't expect thermal ect to be too effective. I still think for defence I would pick radar, for whether.. [/B]

true, but sattelite with teh us, if someone sent a nuke, we would know the second it starts to come out of the silo or sub.

TO otmorozok:

Ok, what you said is still steriotyping(sp?) not all muslims hate americans. some disagree with american policy but they dont hate them. They hate isarael and there are wars to prove that. the USA are great allies with turkey, and they are mostly muslims. So why do you say muslims hate us? oh, btw, there are 2 diffren sects of muslims, 1 which you are probably refering to and one that you are beign ignorant to. SHi i(sp?) are the military kind of muslim where as suni(sp?) (i think i might have them backwards, if i dom please correct me) muslims are not. Most of the muslims you hear about making car bombs and such are shi i muslims. The ones you RARELY hear about are suni muslims.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

It is good we can agree.

Maybe if we were building off of that....

Yeah, meh..

but dont you agree that if they hadnt of sent all their troops to battle and actually hold a position and have a good quarter of their army working on tanks/planes/weapons the russians would have won faster?

They wouldn't of won faster me thinks, one of the reasons they won so fast was the pure numbers they beat the allies to Berlin. The men would be inexperienced and slow to start I don't believe it would go any faster = /.

maybe he could post in chitchat for that

I see no harm in him posting here CC is as retarded as the asylum but less flaming = /.

true, but sattelite with teh us, if someone sent a nuke, we would know the second it starts to come out of the silo or sub.

The Russians have a very good sattelite system as well and they can destroy other sattelites from space. So before sending a nuke if I was them I would make sure you can't see it before it's too late. The Russians have the same anti missile program so they should know that they don't work 100%.

the USA are great allies with turkey, and they are mostly muslims

Sorry to interupt, but there has been (and I mentioned thisin another thread) a lot of anti Bush rallies in Turkey. (I hope you do not support him but tbh he is the cause of a lot of this hate for America.)

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Sorry to interupt, but there has been (and I mentioned thisin another thread) a lot of anti Bush rallies in Turkey. (I hope you do not support him but tbh he is the cause of a lot of this hate for America.)

yes thats true, but just because they hate him doesnt mean they hate the us in general.

well, im stumped as to what to say next...

 

[Kuzmich]

Ok, what you said is still steriotyping(sp?) not all muslims hate americans. some disagree with american policy but they dont hate them. They hate isarael and there are wars to prove that. the USA are great allies with turkey, and they are mostly muslims. So why do you say muslims hate us? oh, btw, there are 2 diffren sects of muslims, 1 which you are probably refering to and one that you are beign ignorant to. SHi i(sp?) are the military kind of muslim where as suni(sp?) (i think i might have them backwards, if i dom please correct me) muslims are not. Most of the muslims you hear about making car bombs and such are shi i muslims. The ones you RARELY hear about are suni muslims.

[glow=red]Then why do so many Muslim Nations consider 9/11 a national holiday? And why were there celebrations all over the Muslim world right after 9/11 attacks?[/glow]

The Russians have a very good sattelite system as well and they can destroy other sattelites from space. So before sending a nuke if I was them I would make sure you can't see it before it's too late. The Russians have the same anti missile program so they should know that they don't work 100%.

[glow=red]Just to add to what you said, blacking out american satelites was our original plan if nuclear war was to break out, i posted a link a while back that described such an attack in details. It is basically us blowing up their satelites, then US president not knowing what heppened calls Kremlin asking if this is their doing, Kremlin says no, american president believes kremlin and few hours later after making sure that there are no American satelites left on orbit USSR would launch the nukes. We have the same program as americans because creation of that program was a joint mission between the two nations. And to thebastardsword. Yes we do generaly dislike US, not officially but that is the public view. Like we didn't support you in Iraq and Putin became much loved through out the nation it even nulified all the stuff he did or if more correctly didn't do during Kursk sinking.[/glow]

 

[Lights]

[glow=red]Ofcourse Muslims hate you. You killed a lot of innocent civilians and taken even more to prisons, without any evidence, after that you interegate them. Muslims hate you, and they are right to hate you. You done only bad to them.[/glow]

Keeping in mind that all this was started by Muslim terrorists, not America.
Everything you have just mentioned was done first by them. And, no, I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists.

[glow=red]Then why do so many Muslim Nations consider 9/11 a national holiday? And why were there celebrations all over the Muslim world right after 9/11 attacks?[/glow]

Keywords: so many

Not all. Definantly not all. What you are doing is exactly called stereotyping. This is no different than saying all blacks are thugs, or all white people cant dance. Which just isnt true.

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]So many means most.

Iraq didn't do anything to you, Osama and his Alkaida did, and there was Osama at all that time? He was in Afghanistan. But you said: "Hey, we already got that oil pipe in Afghanistan and that puppet we set up for a president, so lets just blaim it all on Iraq, they got an evil dictator. I mean common guy is fat and he got a mustage, he must be evil. Also we gave him those weapons, and who the hell knows maybe his scientists who have no required skills or education, maybe they found a way to deliver those weapons to US. I mean common all can happen, those mongolian hackers did hack into a calculator, using a hammer."
And the americans went to pointless war, and everyone involved lived worse ever after. Exept for Alkaida and Osama bin Ladden.[/glow]

 

[Lights]

[glow=red]So many means most.

Iraq didn't do anything to you, Osama and his Alkaida did, and there was Osama at all that time? He was in Afghanistan. But you said: "Hey, we already got that oil pipe in Afghanistan and that puppet we set up for a president, so lets just blaim it all on Iraq, they got an evil dictator. I mean common guy is fat and he got a mustage, he must be evil. Also we gave him those weapons, and who the hell knows maybe his scientists who have no required skills or education, maybe they found a way to deliver those weapons to US. I mean common all can happen, those mongolian hackers did hack into a calculator, using a hammer."
And the americans went to pointless war, and everyone involved lived worse ever after. Exept for Alkaida and Osama bin Ladden.[/glow]

Where in Gods name did this reply come from?
How does you stereotyping the Islamic religion turn into you bashing the United States? You just have barrels of hate..

And, no, many does not mean most. There is a tremendous difference.

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]In this case it does. And how am i bashing the US? I am just saying my opinion on your reasons for pointless war with Iraq.[/glow]