• Canada: We wanna look cool, so we'll buy 65 F-35's for 9 Billion
    168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;23443513] And We pretty much liberated Holland[/QUOTE] Oh wow, you liberated [i][b]two[/b] [u]provinces[/u][/i] in the Netherlands, that's a amazing thing to be proud of! [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Holland_position.svg/200px-Holland_position.svg.png[/IMG] [QUOTE=PEn1s lol;23443513]6,646,281 males, age 16–60 Fit for Service 6,417,924 females, age 16–60 Fit for service[/QUOTE] Fit for Age =/= Actual Personnel, that's just the entire population of Canada who can join, the entire Canadian Military only has 67,756 people in it
In terms of war, trade, alliances and politics the United States and Canada are brothers. Why all the fighting? Everyone knows if one were invaded, the other would try it's damnedest to help them.
I'm absolutely amazed at Canada. Most of the time in the USA, we just let our government buy whatever and trust them to spend the money wisely, whereas Canada is freaking out over what could have been wasteful spending. God I love Canada...
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23447163]Oh wow, you liberated [i][b]two[/b] [u]provinces[/u][/i] in the Netherlands, that's a amazing thing to be proud of! [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Holland_position.svg/200px-Holland_position.svg.png[/IMG] Fit for Age =/= Actual Personnel, that's just the entire population of Canada who can join, the entire Canadian Military only has 67,756 people in it[/QUOTE] No, my ignorant friend, the First Canadian Army basically did what Market Garden failed to achieve, including the liberation of Arnhem and the surrender of German forces in the Netherlands.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23447163]Oh wow, you liberated [i][b]two[/b] [u]provinces[/u][/i] in the Netherlands, that's a amazing thing to be proud of! [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Holland_position.svg/200px-Holland_position.svg.png[/IMG] Fit for Age =/= Actual Personnel, that's just the entire population of Canada who can join, the entire Canadian Military only has 67,756 people in it[/QUOTE] Why do dumb americans always think they know everything about wars? Canada was a HUGE part in both world wars, and to think otherwise just proves you're truly ignorant of history. I bet you think you won vietnam too.
I'm sorry OP that we're cooler than you here, have a barrel of maple, it only costed us 20 cents
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23450658]Why do dumb americans always think they know everything about wars? Canada was a HUGE part in both world wars, and to think otherwise just proves you're truly ignorant of history. I bet you think you won vietnam too.[/QUOTE] Probably the post-Cold War superiority complex.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23450658]Why do dumb americans always think they know everything about wars? Canada was a HUGE part in both world wars, and to think otherwise just proves you're truly ignorant of history. I bet you think you won vietnam too.[/QUOTE] It was supposed to be a joke about him calling the entire Netherlands 'Holland' when Holland is only 2 provinces in the Netherlands :geno:
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23451305]It was supposed to be a joke about him calling the entire Netherlands 'Holland' when Holland is only 2 provinces in the Netherlands :geno:[/QUOTE] That image is linked to wikipedia. And the 2nd sentence of the wikipedia article on Holland says, and I quote "Moreover, the term Holland is frequently used to refer to the whole of the Netherlands". Are you dense? Did you genuinely miss that, or did you just disregard it so you could still make your snarky little comment?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23451305]It was supposed to be a joke about him calling the entire Netherlands 'Holland' when Holland is only 2 provinces in the Netherlands :geno:[/QUOTE] Liberating those two areas proved to be a tactical advantage near the end of the war and allowed for the war to end quicker. I'm pretty sure that just those two provinces meant more than just being two provinces.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23451305]It was supposed to be a joke about him calling the entire Netherlands 'Holland' when Holland is only 2 provinces in the Netherlands :geno:[/QUOTE] I get them both confused.
[QUOTE=Libertas;23446560]Um, no Zeke, those numbers are Census calculations. That's the numbers they expect in the case of a draft. Our army does not have a total of over 12 million soldiers, not even including miltia and reserves, nowhere near that amount, I doubt we even hit 100,000 with all considered. [/QUOTE] Well now, I completely missed the target on that one didn't I.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;23435129]Let me fucking get it, they just paid [B][I]$250 million [U]EACH[/U][/I][/B] for a Jet that's has been confirmed time and time again to be a [B][I][U]Downgraded [/U][/I]F-22[/B], who's [B]Unit Cost is only [I]$150.3 Million Dollars[/I][/B] Canadia confirmed to be fucking retarded[/QUOTE] It has been said time and time again by the U.S. Airforce, the F-22 will not be sold internationally. It will be used by the U.S.A exclusivly. The F-35 is avalible internationally due to it being developed by the JSF project which included several countries around the world. The higher price is due to it being produced in the U.S.A, so the airforce feels like it is justified to make other countries than them, pay more than it cost for them to produce. That's also the reason why Denmark has begun looking into other options instead of the F-35, even though we helped developed the F-35
[QUOTE=mastermaul;23443028]The Germans invented stormtrooper tactics, the precursor to modern squad level infantry tactics. The British invented the Combined Arms doctrine, the the basis of modern operational warfare. The Russians invaded again a year later and won. (The British, in a slightly unrelated note, also declared war on Finland the second time.)[/QUOTE] The Canadians regardless still greatly assisted, it was one of the first recorded instances of giving individual platoon leaders maps. Yeah it was barely a victory. We still only had minimal casualties in comparison to the Russians. Also The majority of major battles we won in terms of successfully fending off the Russians, read up on the continuation war. We time and time again obliterated entire regiments, and at times entire divisions. It was a pyrrhic victory at best. Albeit the Russians did pretty much halt the advance because of the rush to Berlin. We still held on for 3 years. To bluntly state that the Russians won is just ignorant. Britain declared war, but that was it, they dropped most of their bombs in the ocean and only shot down like 3 planes and the pilots thankfully lived. On an unrelated note, Finland is the only country ever (really nobody else) to have paid full war reparations.
Oh God Canada's gonna attack us! Fucking idiots...
it's going to be a red dawn tomorrow mother fuckers
[QUOTE=mastermaul;23443028] The British invented the Combined Arms doctrine, the the basis of modern operational warfare./QUOTE] Actually, the British never had any formal doctrine, while the operational level of war was something first theorized and implemented by the Soviet Army under Marshal Tukhachevsky. Combined arms was already an ancient concept and the major powers just applied to principles to the new technology at the time.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;23442916]I know you're talking to him but, my analysis would be a Canadian victory. I'm basing this on the grounds that we are better trained and equipped.[/QUOTE] Better training is great, but unless you have an army of 65,000 Rambo's, I find it hard to believe you could fight off over a million Koreans (Or five million vs. 100,000, if you include reserves). They could literally walk into your military bases while you try to fight them from the air. Obviously if you were on the defensive you would get millions and millions of civilians, so you would still win, but if you invaded North Korea the same thing would happen, hence why I disregarded that. Seriously though, it's two platoons of men versus a man in a tank or a plane. I don't care how amazingly awesome your guys are. You don't win that fight. And North Korea does have 4 times more aircraft, 7 times more ground vehicles, and 97 submarines to your 4. I never called your armed forces incompetent, and I never will. I'm just saying that an incredibly warlike nation like North Korea will easily defeat a pacifistic nation like Canada, given idealistic conditions. In the real world, NATO and UN forces would level NK before they even got offshore. But when you jump to conclusions about what I mean, you're only making yourself look like an idiot. And my first post with Canada as America's hat was a joke. Apparently you took that very seriously.
[QUOTE=Beafman;23454376]It has been said time and time again by the U.S. Airforce, the F-22 will not be sold internationally. It will be used by the U.S.A exclusivly. The F-35 is avalible internationally due to it being developed by the JSF project which included several countries around the world. The higher price is due to it being produced in the U.S.A, so the airforce feels like it is justified to make other countries than them, pay more than it cost for them to produce. That's also the reason why Denmark has begun looking into other options instead of the F-35, even though we helped developed the F-35[/QUOTE] Heh, I remember when the Joint Strike Fighter program was originally designed as a "common" aircraft to reduce costs. [editline]04:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;23455204]Better training is great, but unless you have an army of 65,000 Rambo's, I find it hard to believe you could fight off over a million Koreans (Or five million vs. 100,000, if you include reserves). They could literally walk into your military bases while you try to fight them from the air. Obviously if you were on the defensive you would get millions and millions of civilians, so you would still win, but if you invaded North Korea the same thing would happen, hence why I disregarded that. Seriously though, it's two platoons of men versus a man in a tank or a plane. I don't care how amazingly awesome your guys are. You don't win that fight. And North Korea does have 4 times more aircraft, 7 times more ground vehicles, and 97 submarines to your 4. I never called your armed forces incompetent, and I never will. I'm just saying that an incredibly warlike nation like North Korea will easily defeat a pacifistic nation like Canada, given idealistic conditions. In the real world, NATO and UN forces would level NK before they even got offshore. But when you jump to conclusions about what I mean, you're only making yourself look like an idiot. And my first post with Canada as America's hat was a joke. Apparently you took that very seriously.[/QUOTE] Hmm, Canadians defending their homeland while North Koreans are invading a country that is not part of their plan for Korean unification...where's the balance regarding the will to fight going to tip towards now? Ever heard of the Battle of Rorke's Drift or the Battle of Kapyong? How could such a small force drive off a large opposition? Just comparing the forces is moot if you don't look at things like the terrain, their morale, the operational picture, the opposing forces military doctrine and supplies.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23455107][QUOTE=mastermaul;23443028] The British invented the Combined Arms doctrine, the the basis of modern operational warfare./QUOTE] Actually, the British never had any formal doctrine, while the operational level of war was something first theorized and implemented by the Soviet Army under Marshal Tukhachevsky. Combined arms was already an ancient concept and the major powers just applied to principles to the new technology at the time.[/QUOTE] Modern combined arms, I should say. It was pretty much pioneered at Cambrai. Successful integration of armor, infantry, artillery, and air support into an attack which eventually lead to the greater mobilization of the modern army and the end of trench warfare. It was used at a much smaller level then, of course. Over time they just upscaled the general idea.
[QUOTE=Morcam;23455204]Better training is great, but unless you have an army of 65,000 Rambo's, I find it hard to believe you could fight off over a million Koreans (Or five million vs. 100,000, if you include reserves). They could literally walk into your military bases while you try to fight them from the air. Obviously if you were on the defensive you would get millions and millions of civilians, so you would still win, but if you invaded North Korea the same thing would happen, hence why I disregarded that. Seriously though, it's two platoons of men versus a man in a tank or a plane. I don't care how amazingly awesome your guys are. You don't win that fight. And North Korea does have 4 times more aircraft, 7 times more ground vehicles, and 97 submarines to your 4. I never called your armed forces incompetent, and I never will. I'm just saying that an incredibly warlike nation like North Korea will easily defeat a pacifistic nation like Canada, given idealistic conditions. In the real world, NATO and UN forces would level NK before they even got offshore. But when you jump to conclusions about what I mean, you're only making yourself look like an idiot. And my first post with Canada as America's hat was a joke. Apparently you took that very seriously.[/QUOTE] The battle of Thermopalye begs to differ.
Where does this hypothetical scenario take place, NK or the Canadian mainland? NK wouldn't stand a chance on the Canadian mainland.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23455808]The battle of Thermopalye begs to differ.[/QUOTE] I firmly believe the results of the Battle of Thermopylae would have been different if the Persians had had artillery. And in the final kill count, the Spartans only got around a 1:10 kill ratio. Sorry. Still incredibly badass, though.
In Theoretical war between NK and Canada, as long as we can keep the NK from invading we're good, it would end in a stalemate.
Are people really trying to argue that the size of an army means nothing? I guess if your country of choice had an army of 15 men, they would for no reason win because the spartans did it at Thermopylae, right? The Canadians have had great success in war, but so have the Koreans. Regardless I can't comprehend any value in this discussion, so I guess I'll just let you guys go at it.
...The fuck would they even NEED fighter planes for?
[QUOTE=MiniManz;23458376]...The fuck would they even NEED fighter planes for?[/QUOTE] Patrolling airspace, Arctic sovereignty , and fighting in wars...pretty much what any country uses them for.. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet#Operational_history"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet#Operational_history[/URL]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;23455934]Where does this hypothetical scenario take place, NK or the Canadian mainland? NK wouldn't stand a chance on the Canadian mainland.[/QUOTE] I think they'd do fine in urban settings but they'd get buttfucked in the arctic. [editline]09:11PM[/editline] [QUOTE=MiniManz;23458376]...The fuck would they even NEED fighter planes for?[/QUOTE] red bull air race
[QUOTE=MiniManz;23458376]...The fuck would they even NEED fighter planes for?[/QUOTE] Their anti-air capability maintains the balance of power. It doesn't really have any practical purpose, but it's nice to have. Their anti-ground capability is fantastic. Since Canada probably isn't going to wage any wars without NATO support, it gives a great mobile capability.
I think Canada are secretly planning to annex the USA while most of the USA's armed forces are in Afghanistan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.