• Canada: We wanna look cool, so we'll buy 65 F-35's for 9 Billion
    168 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thomo;23434381]Man what happened to these jets fighting other jets and having sexy dog-fights and shit like that. I don't see the taliban up in there jets and shit like that.[/QUOTE] They haven't learned how to jump and miss the ground yet, give them a few years [editline]12:36AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;23439832]Just because we don't invade other countries at our own discretion doesn't mean we "suck" or anything. I guess you've never heard of Vimy Ridge, the Battle of Ortona or how Canadian forces at Juno Beach advanced further into Normandy than any of the other D-Day forces.[/QUOTE] Juno was a pushover compared to Omaha
Listen guys I havent read past page 2 yet but uh you guys have to remember North Korea or for that matter China wouldnt be able to mobilize troops to canada at all. The chinese navy may be advance but for long distance operations it isnt prepared. That and you know we would have both the US, the UK, and the rest of the british commonwealth on our side. Just sayin.
[QUOTE=Themage;23461236]They haven't learned how to jump and miss the ground yet, give them a few years [editline]12:36AM[/editline] Juno was a pushover compared to Omaha[/QUOTE] Pushover? I wouldn't say the second most heavily defended landing zone was a pushover. Besides, our guys didn't end up in the quagmire the Americans encountered on Omaha and we pushed inland the furthest out of the other landing zones.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23442593]Let's say hypothetically, N. Korea managed to seize one of the coasts (without resistance for some reason, so assume no loss of life on either side yet) and the naval aspect wasn't relevant anymore. Still assume no allied support. What's your new analysis of the outcome?[/QUOTE] Even assuming they seized a port, they don't have a large enough navy to actually cart people into the country fast enough. I'd generally still assume Canadian victory however. We fight such limited wars today that we have a tendency to forget that when you are using hardware like Canada, the USA, or the UK, and you are really allowed to take the gloves off, that the sheer killing power of these weapons is nearly beyond imagining. Those F-35's alone would seriously annihilate virtually anything in the NK attack force with virtually zero opposition. Once you start deploying napalm and cluster munitions, you can pretty much cripple any logistical operations and bring the enemy force to a grinding halt. Surface to air missiles would be a problem, but when you are attacking, your SAM missile capabilities are limited to what you can deploy in the field and what is mounted on treads. You aren't going to get the air defense networks like you see in mainland NK. In Vietnam, using old tech and fighting on the enemy's turf, there was roughly a 17:1 kill to death ratio for the United States. In a modern conflict, using modern tech, on your own land vs an invading force (which means total civilian population support, unlike Vietnam), I'd say the Canadians could manage much better.
[QUOTE=radioactive;23459383]I think Canada are secretly planning to annex the USA while most of the USA's armed forces are in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Just Michigan and Alaska. Hawaii would be nice too, then we'd have every climate type. [editline]02:19AM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;23463285]Even assuming they seized a port, they don't have a large enough navy to actually cart people into the country fast enough. I'd generally still assume Canadian victory however. We fight such limited wars today that we have a tendency to forget that when you are using hardware like Canada, the USA, or the UK, and you are really allowed to take the gloves off, that the sheer killing power of these weapons is nearly beyond imagining. Those F-35's alone would seriously annihilate virtually anything in the NK attack force with virtually zero opposition. Once you start deploying napalm and cluster munitions, you can pretty much cripple any logistical operations and bring the enemy force to a grinding halt. Surface to air missiles would be a problem, but when you are attacking, your SAM missile capabilities are limited to what you can deploy in the field and what is mounted on treads. You aren't going to get the air defense networks like you see in mainland NK. In Vietnam, using old tech and fighting on the enemy's turf, there was roughly a 17:1 kill to death ratio for the United States. In a modern conflict, using modern tech, on your own land vs an invading force (which means total civilian population support, unlike Vietnam), I'd say the Canadians could manage much better.[/QUOTE] Do you think it would affect the outcome depending on which coast they seized? It would be harder to move equipment inland from the west coast, no?
[QUOTE=GunFox;23463285]Even assuming they seized a port, they don't have a large enough navy to actually cart people into the country fast enough. I'd generally still assume Canadian victory however. We fight such limited wars today that we have a tendency to forget that when you are using hardware like Canada, the USA, or the UK, and you are really allowed to take the gloves off, that the sheer killing power of these weapons is nearly beyond imagining. Those F-35's alone would seriously annihilate virtually anything in the NK attack force with virtually zero opposition. Once you start deploying napalm and cluster munitions, you can pretty much cripple any logistical operations and bring the enemy force to a grinding halt. Surface to air missiles would be a problem, but when you are attacking, your SAM missile capabilities are limited to what you can deploy in the field and what is mounted on treads. You aren't going to get the air defense networks like you see in mainland NK. In Vietnam, using old tech and fighting on the enemy's turf, there was roughly a 17:1 kill to death ratio for the United States. In a modern conflict, using modern tech, on your own land vs an invading force (which means total civilian population support, unlike Vietnam), I'd say the Canadians could manage much better.[/QUOTE] Actually, Canada doesn't field cluster nor incendiary munitions. Though we do have a shitload of Mark 80 series bombs which can be quickly converted to JDAMs, Paveway LGBs and Mavericks. Still more than enough to fuck up North Korean logistics and for battlefield air interdiction. Even the most modern SAM systems that the KPA can bring to a foreign country were built in the 1980s and CF-18s already have the ECM systems to counter them. Once the NK advance is at a standstill our armoured regiments and their Leopard 2s are going to counterattack and tear through North Korean armored forces like at 73 Easting. [editline]12:25AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;23463498]Just Michigan and Alaska. Hawaii would be nice too, then we'd have every climate type. [editline]02:19AM[/editline] Do you think it would affect the outcome depending on which coast they seized? It would be harder to move equipment inland from the west coast, no?[/QUOTE] What's the North Korean objective after landing on the west coast? Are they going to rush in and occupy Vancouver or proceed into Alberta? If they plan on going inland then they will face very stiff resistance from our Reserve forces and possibly partisans in the Coast and Rocky Mountains. It would be like trying to invade Switzerland. The mountains form a long belt from the top of BC to the bottom and there's no way to bypass it.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23463539]Actually, Canada doesn't field cluster nor incendiary munitions. Though we do have a shitload of Mark 80 series bombs which can be quickly converted to JDAMs, Paveway LGBs and Mavericks. Still more than enough to fuck up North Korean logistics and for battlefield air interdiction. Even the most modern SAM systems that the KPA can bring to a foreign country were built in the 1980s and CF-18s already have the ECM systems to counter them. Once the NK advance is at a standstill our armoured regiments and their Leopard 2s are going to counterattack and tear through North Korean armored forces like at 73 Easting.[/QUOTE] In the event of an invasion Canada would field anything and everything necessary to defend itself. Assuming it didn't immediately start producing such munitions itself, Canada would undoubtedly purchase them from foreign nations. This is why I find the whole "we don't use cluster or incendiary weapons" bullshit to be so hypocritical. Everyone knows damn well that any nation on the planet would use them immediately if someone else landed on their soil. Conventional bombs are powerful, but ultimately a pale comparison to cluster bombs and incendiary weapons when they are being used for their intended purpose. For instance: A convoy is moving supplies. It contains 30 vehicles ranging from trucks to light armored vehicles. To destroy it with conventional 1000 pound bombs, you need several aircraft making several passes. Not only do you TOTALLY annihilate the road, but you also put your aircraft at risk. On the other hand you can drop ONE CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon from ONE aircraft on ONE pass and it will deploy cluster munitions which will in turn each target a vehicle and disable it by putting a hockey puck sized hole in the engine block. It will even have munitions to SPARE. Not only did you just disable an ENTIRE convoy with a single bomb, but you can now take their equipment with little opposition. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon[/url]
[QUOTE=GunFox;23463675]In the event of an invasion Canada would field anything and everything necessary to defend itself. Assuming it didn't immediately start producing such munitions itself, Canada would undoubtedly purchase them from foreign nations.[/QUOTE] Personally, I believe it'll depend on whatever government is in power's political balls.
Everyone on facepunch should contribute $1,000 dollars so we can buy one. Hey, monkey_123 already got the fund started.
[QUOTE=7DeadlySyns;23463787]Everyone on facepunch should contribute $1,000 dollars so we can buy one. Hey, monkey_123 already got the fund started.[/QUOTE]The start of the Facepunch Air Force! FAF? As in, FAFin' around...
[QUOTE=madmax678;23463977]The start of the Facepunch Air Force! FAF? As in, FAFin' around...[/QUOTE] Somethingawful's logo is a grenade, they clearly have a much better prepared military. We don't stand a chance, man.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23464000]Somethingawful's logo is a grenade, they clearly have a much better prepared military. We don't stand a chance, man.[/QUOTE]Awww shit, well, how about 4chans airforce? They must be flying around in old crates with M-60's strapped to them...
[QUOTE=madmax678;23464336]Awww shit, well, how about 4chans airforce? They must be flying around in old crates with M-60's strapped to them...[/QUOTE] 4chan has blimps with squirt guns duct taped to them
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23464402]4chan has blimps with squirt guns duct taped to them[/QUOTE]Ha Ha Ha, So, what do we have? Airboat Aeroplanes from War Of The Servers?
[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] You are a gigantic buffoon and should stop posting. [highlight](User was banned for this post (""stop posting"" - GunFox))[/highlight]
In the Canada vs NK scenario it really depends on what NK's goals are. They probably would be on the offense, NK being NK. If NK's goals were to wipe out the Canadian military at all costs then they'd probably eventually put a massive dent in Canada's military through sheer bloody mindedness, though with Canada's by far superior technology, NK would probably surrender/give up/whatever because they'd be far more soldiers than Canada. I personally wouldn't wipe out my entire army for one victory.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;23465273]In the Canada vs NK scenario it really depends on what NK's goals are. They probably would be on the offense, NK being NK. If NK's goals were to wipe out the Canadian military at all costs then they'd probably eventually put a massive dent in Canada's military through sheer bloody mindedness, though with Canada's by far superior technology, NK would probably surrender/give up/whatever because they'd be far more soldiers than Canada. I personally wouldn't wipe out my entire army for one victory.[/QUOTE] north korea has soviet-era military tech, their soldiers are malnourished, and their technology in general is primitive compared to canada even if they somehow get their amphibian fleet, they're only going to be a replica of massive Soviet Union troopers flying into a highly trained, fit, more tactical, and more technologically advanced army they get massacred, no dent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.