Desolate Carnage
Page 1 of 2 - 1 2
 
Lol @ France
Archived | Views: 4036 | Replies: 70 | Started 15 years, 8 months ago
 
#460422 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 15:48:57
Group: Members
Posts: 47,60340k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44,538.17
 
#460423 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 15:49:08
Group: Members
Posts: 47,60340k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44,538.17
also silly euro's needs to be said here
 
#460426 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 15:53:31
Group: Members
Posts: 60,63040k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 75,457.20
LOL
 
#460427 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 15:55:55
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
oops, didnt see ya there
my bad
 
#460429 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46
Group: Members
Posts: 74,76940k
Joined: Aug 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 7,730.25 $
Le Triomphant
 
#460431 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20
Group: Members
Posts: 47,60340k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44,538.17
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had
 
#460433 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:39
Group: Members
Posts: 60,63040k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 75,457.20
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 
#460434 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
 
#460435 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:05:41
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
though i hate french and wouldn't even visit it, despite its a beautiful country, but ppl are creeps
 
#460440 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:22:02
Group: Members
Posts: 60,63040k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 75,457.20
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
thats wikipedia, its unreliable

 
#460441 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:23:11
Group: Members
Posts: 32,34230k
Joined: May 31 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,155.70
Quote (Sgull @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:22:02)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
thats wikipedia, its unreliable


LOL
 
#460442 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08
Group: Members
Posts: 47,60340k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44,538.17
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful
 
#460445 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:32:22
Group: Members
Posts: 13,90610k
Joined: Apr 28 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,331.84
wow france has a nuclear sub?
 
#460456 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:41:43
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more
 
#460462 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:51:30
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas
 
#460463 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:53:09
Group: Members
Posts: 47,60340k
Joined: Sep 1 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 44,538.17
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas


lol @ waco
 
#460467 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:53:43
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas


nothing compared with napoleon greatness and achievements
 
#460469 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:54:55
Group: Guest
Posts: 12,44310k
Joined: May 28 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,771.55
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


What War has Russia won?
 
#460470 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 16:55:59
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:53:43)
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas


nothing compared with napoleon greatness and achievements


napoleon was more like some throwback dictator where he didnt care how many troops he lost
also, vn1 attempt at taking mother russia during the winter
 
#460476 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:05:35
Group: Members
Posts: 60,63040k
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 75,457.20
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas
world war 1
world war 2
desert storm
afghanistan
war in iraq
civil war
trail of tears
little bighorn LOL

 
#460479 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:07:23
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (sir_lance_bb @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:54:55)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


What War has Russia won?


i'll just say that russian forces marched through berlin 3 times, once in paris, 4 times in warsaw, defeated strongest (at that time) swedish fleet, end up victorious against mongols (all who know anything about them would say how hard that task was), was victorious in 4 wars again Osman empire

i'm sure i forgetting something, like countless small wars and conflicts
it would be easier to bring up conflicts that russia lost
 
#460480 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:07:26
Group: Guest
Posts: 12,44310k
Joined: May 28 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,771.55
Quote (Sgull @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:05:35)
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas
world war 1
world war 2
desert storm
afghanistan
war in iraq
civil war
trail of tears
little bighorn LOL


LOL @ mentioning the Civil War.
 
#460481 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:09:31
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Napoleon was not clutch.
 
#460482 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:03
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (Sgull @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:05:35)
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas
world war 1 --> never really participated
world war 2 --> nice try to make a open second front, when sovits was on german boarders
desert storm --> was never won
afghanistan --> was there any victory?
war in iraq --> clearly lost
civil war
trail of tears
little bighorn LOL


 
#460483 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.
 
#460485 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:11:22
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


Even while, FDR was doing everything but sending in troops to help.

This post has been edited by ppkpkppk on Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:11:34
 
#460486 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:11:44
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
This poop has been edited by ppkpkppk on Feb 16 2009 - 17:11:34
 
#460488 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:12:01
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
And we didn't participate in World War I?
 
#460489 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:12:24
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
And how the fuck did we lose the war in Iraq?
 
#460492 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:13:26
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
And the French and Indian War
 
#460493 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:13:48
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
And the Cold War
 
#460494 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:14:10
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:10:03)
Quote (Sgull @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:05:35)
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:51:30)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 13:41:43)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:24:08)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:04:30)
Quote (smoked @ Feb 16 2009 - 16:01:20)
Quote (randomtask @ Feb 16 2009 - 15:56:46)
Le Triomphant


Funny how they name a sub after something they have never had


:donno: france had quite succesful military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


I dont see much there that makes them very successful


i dont see much victories in usa military history either
except briliant war in pacific against japan, i wonder if there was any more


1812
revolutionary war
waco texas
world war 1 --> never really participated
world war 2 --> nice try to make a open second front, when sovits was on german boarders
desert storm --> was never won
afghanistan --> was there any victory?
war in iraq --> clearly lost
civil war
trail of tears
little bighorn LOL


are you really saying wwii was ezpk for russia?
and spencer should not really mention desert storm, afghanistan or iraq, none of which are victories in the classical sense, but they were also not wars in the classical sense either
 
#460495 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:14:28
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:13:26)
And the French and Indian War


pre usa imo, does not count
 
#460496 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)
 
#460497 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:23
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
and the Spanish-American war too
 
#460498 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?
 
#460499 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:36
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


fucking bandwagoners
 
#460500 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:42
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


what the hell are we talking about now?
 
#460501 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:15
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


you also forget that russian leaders have long figured they had strength in numbers so throwing bodies at a problem is the easiest solution

most other countries have more regard for life than what russian leaders traditionally have had
 
#460502 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:55
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:42)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


what the hell are we talking about now?


On August 23, 1939, Germany and the USSR signed a secret non-agression pact dividing up Poland. In September, the Soviets invaded eastern Poland.

On November 30, 1939, the Russo-Finnish War began when the USSR invaded Finland. On March 12, 1940, Finland surrendered.

On June 18, 1940, the USSR invaded the Baltic states.

On April 13, 1941, the USSR and Japan signed a neutrality pact.
 
#460503 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:56
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:17:42)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


what the hell are we talking about now?


you were helping hitler for the first part of the war, even though everyone knew stallin and hitler were just biding their time to screw the other one over
 
#460504 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:20:49
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (blind_chief @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:15)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


you also forget that russian leaders have long figured they had strength in numbers so throwing bodies at a problem is the easiest solution

most other countries have more regard for life than what russian leaders traditionally have had


ok, but we talking here not about tactics or strategies, but about victories
and i dont think anyone can take this one away from russians
 
#460505 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:31
Group: Guest
Posts: 12,44310k
Joined: May 28 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,771.55
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:13:48)
And the Cold War


You might want to Bold that for Vogan.
 
#460506 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:36
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
continental scrubs -> global hegemon in under 200 years of existance

sounds like a pretty big military accomplishment vogan
 
#460507 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:22:13
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:55)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:42)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


what the hell are we talking about now?


On August 23, 1939, Germany and the USSR signed a secret non-agression pact dividing up Poland. In September, the Soviets invaded eastern Poland.

On November 30, 1939, the Russo-Finnish War began when the USSR invaded Finland. On March 12, 1940, Finland surrendered.

On June 18, 1940, the USSR invaded the Baltic states.

On April 13, 1941, the USSR and Japan signed a neutrality pact.


and why is after all this england and usa bacome allies?
exactly
 
#460508 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:23:24
Group: Members
Posts: 16,11910k
Joined: Oct 26 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,371.50 $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:22:13)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:19:55)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:42)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:17:00)
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:16:08)
Quote (ppkpkppk @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:10:42)
Yea, because you guys really had world war ii handled on your own.


i will just say some statistics about it
all help that ussr recieved from usa could be compared with 3 months of equipment that soviets used during only the battle of stalingrad or could be compared with 1/10th of resources that ussr presented infront of battle of kursk (still the biggest battle with most tanks)


thats cuz you assclowns were on the wrong side for half the war
how much help did we give britain?


what the hell are we talking about now?


On August 23, 1939, Germany and the USSR signed a secret non-agression pact dividing up Poland. In September, the Soviets invaded eastern Poland.

On November 30, 1939, the Russo-Finnish War began when the USSR invaded Finland. On March 12, 1940, Finland surrendered.

On June 18, 1940, the USSR invaded the Baltic states.

On April 13, 1941, the USSR and Japan signed a neutrality pact.


and why is after all this england and usa bacome allies?
exactly


we had more important shit to do, and we figured you clowns could at least control your own continent
 
#460509 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:23:27
Group: Members
Posts: 30,24630k
Joined: Oct 5 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,287.80 $ $
Quote (hedonism @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:36)
continental scrubs -> global hegemon in under 200 years of existance

sounds like a pretty big military accomplishment vogan


we talking about military history, not fake bravado
 
#460510 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:24:16
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 14:23:27)
Quote (hedonism @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:36)
continental scrubs -> global hegemon in under 200 years of existance

sounds like a pretty big military accomplishment vogan


we talking about military history, not fake bravado


lol
we dont only fight the wars we think we can win, but the ones that are just
russians dont have a gr8 track record of trying to help others out ya know
 
#460511 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:24:39
Group: Guest
Posts: 12,44310k
Joined: May 28 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,771.55
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:23:27)
Quote (hedonism @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:36)
continental scrubs -> global hegemon in under 200 years of existance

sounds like a pretty big military accomplishment vogan


we talking about military history, not fake bravado


Want to explain how you loss the Cold War and you commies tried Democatric ideas but you were still really commies?
 
#460513 | Mon - Feb 16 2009 - 17:25:33
Group: Members
Posts: 22,70420k
Joined: Oct 22 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 1,044.55
Quote (Vogan @ Feb 16 2009 - 18:23:27)
Quote (hedonism @ Feb 16 2009 - 17:21:36)
continental scrubs -> global hegemon in under 200 years of existance

sounds like a pretty big military accomplishment vogan


we talking about military history, not fake bravado


i'd like to think that a nation that solves most of its problems through diplomacy is far more accomplished than those who rush into military conflict
Archived | Views: 4036 | Replies: 70 | General Archive - 2009 Topic List
Page 1 of 2 - 1 2
 
Quit the Internet