|
|
-
Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 02. 2012 13:24
MrDucky
|
How would a huge war look like between the British Commonwealth and the Union of South American Nations for the Falklands?
Okay the Commonwealth isn't really a military alliance but what if the entire Commonwealth was supporting Britain and the entire Union of South American Nations supporting Argentina in a war for the Falkland Islands. What would happened? Would the combined strength of the Union of South American Nations pummel the Commonwealth of Nations?
I was hoping we could discuss what would happen and suggest plans for stuff like re-taking the Falklands with Commonwealth forces. Sort of like the discussion going on in one of the old threads on the regional forums with Sindher and others discussing what would be militarily feasible etc. We would sort of be like Armchair generals.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 21. 2012 05:27
Sindher
|
Originally Posted by Tomm96
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by MrDucky
I do not want to get NATO involved. I just want to see how those two organizations would fight each other.
Just because you don't want NATO involved doesn't means NATO won't interfere with such a situation. By only saying "No NATO" you're killing the entire point of discussion, and deforming it into a "what if the entire USAN fights against the Swiss Navy" joke.
Unless you have a way to shut up the United States, that's another story. But if you can make the US shut up on matters like this, you don't need a war at all.
Well USA cant really start a war today since they still got 1-2 war going on and China is starting to demanding theres money back.
But a fact I know Sweden (might be a small country but for us we have a big high tech army/navy/air force) would support UK and theres allies as long they keep to the Geneva convention.
But as they did on the 80s UK while win but they while pay a high price if they get main part of USAN against them, but still UK while then have NATO behind them.
Don't underestimate the US just because of what you've seen in Afhganistan. How long did it take to defeat Saddam and his forces in Iraq? A few weeks? Look at the US Defence Budget and just imagine the earth destoying toys they could have created.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 21. 2012 10:40
SaseCaiBlele
|
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Tomm96
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by MrDucky
I do not want to get NATO involved. I just want to see how those two organizations would fight each other.
Just because you don't want NATO involved doesn't means NATO won't interfere with such a situation. By only saying "No NATO" you're killing the entire point of discussion, and deforming it into a "what if the entire USAN fights against the Swiss Navy" joke.
Unless you have a way to shut up the United States, that's another story. But if you can make the US shut up on matters like this, you don't need a war at all.
Well USA cant really start a war today since they still got 1-2 war going on and China is starting to demanding theres money back.
But a fact I know Sweden (might be a small country but for us we have a big high tech army/navy/air force) would support UK and theres allies as long they keep to the Geneva convention.
But as they did on the 80s UK while win but they while pay a high price if they get main part of USAN against them, but still UK while then have NATO behind them.
Don't underestimate the US just because of what you've seen in Afhganistan. How long did it take to defeat Saddam and his forces in Iraq? A few weeks? Look at the US Defence Budget and just imagine the earth destoying toys they could have created.
all world vs km.....
us vs corea war
us vs
Vietnam
us vs saddam first strike(patriot missile ftw 99% failed target few made and was on all news best missile from world..epic)
us vs somalian rebels? lolz this..are u mad ?
Sindher was crap batle on monte cassino ? few vs...uk..indians..?
uk is 1 big shadow now..sas that remains on top..but the rest
why not uk vs russia
vs china
vs france
vs turkey( often beat uk so far )
gives a better ...
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 22. 2012 06:09
Tomm96
|
Sindher I never said that US couldent make it but as they got 1-2 war going on atm they cant really care what happen with UK since they know alot of other countrys back them up.
Also if UK need more help US can give the help with air/navy/army/marines also with nuclear power but that stand under the air force.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 22. 2012 13:12
Ajuha
|
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Tomm96
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by MrDucky
I do not want to get NATO involved. I just want to see how those two organizations would fight each other.
Just because you don't want NATO involved doesn't means NATO won't interfere with such a situation. By only saying "No NATO" you're killing the entire point of discussion, and deforming it into a "what if the entire USAN fights against the Swiss Navy" joke.
Unless you have a way to shut up the United States, that's another story. But if you can make the US shut up on matters like this, you don't need a war at all.
Well USA cant really start a war today since they still got 1-2 war going on and China is starting to demanding theres money back.
But a fact I know Sweden (might be a small country but for us we have a big high tech army/navy/air force) would support UK and theres allies as long they keep to the Geneva convention.
But as they did on the 80s UK while win but they while pay a high price if they get main part of USAN against them, but still UK while then have NATO behind them.
Don't underestimate the US just because of what you've seen in Afhganistan. How long did it take to defeat Saddam and his forces in Iraq? A few weeks? Look at the US Defence Budget and just imagine the earth destoying toys they could have created.
Yes, just look at the amazing USA with their endless budget that ran their economy right into the ground. Or do you think the BILLIONS they spend on disposible stuff like missiles guns and ammo per year, is a good thing?
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 23. 2012 08:10
Sindher
|
Originally Posted by Ajuha
Yes, just look at the amazing USA with their endless budget that ran their economy right into the ground. Or do you think the BILLIONS they spend on disposible stuff like missiles guns and ammo per year, is a good thing?
The spending increased with the two invasions of Iraq and Afhganistan and now the US is making it's cut backs as well as withdrawing from Iraq. The way I see it, spending billions to remain the sole democratic superpower for decades is a good thing. Unless you'd like to see Chinese/Russian Battlegroups conducting exercises 50 miles out to sea from New York.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 23. 2012 13:54
Foxtrot125
|
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Ajuha
Yes, just look at the amazing USA with their endless budget that ran their economy right into the ground. Or do you think the BILLIONS they spend on disposible stuff like missiles guns and ammo per year, is a good thing?
The spending increased with the two invasions of Iraq and Afhganistan and now the US is making it's cut backs as well as withdrawing from Iraq. The way I see it, spending billions to remain the sole democratic superpower for decades is a good thing. Unless you'd like to see Chinese/Russian Battlegroups conducting exercises 50 miles out to sea from New York.
Paranoid much?
The Us's military spending is insane. You've got hundreds of nuclear missiles waiting on a moment's notice from land and subs, a dozen carriers at sea and one of the greatest trained standing armies on earth, and you're currently fighting...geurilla fighters riding around in trucks, firing ak-47's and planting bombs made from old munitions
No nuclear superpower will touch you, as they well know what the consequences will be
...
Wait, aren't we supposed to be talking about the common wealth verses USAN ?
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 23. 2012 16:49
Sindher
|
Originally Posted by Foxtrot125
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Ajuha
Yes, just look at the amazing USA with their endless budget that ran their economy right into the ground. Or do you think the BILLIONS they spend on disposible stuff like missiles guns and ammo per year, is a good thing?
The spending increased with the two invasions of Iraq and Afhganistan and now the US is making it's cut backs as well as withdrawing from Iraq. The way I see it, spending billions to remain the sole democratic superpower for decades is a good thing. Unless you'd like to see Chinese/Russian Battlegroups conducting exercises 50 miles out to sea from New York.
Paranoid much?
The Us's military spending is insane. You've got hundreds of nuclear missiles waiting on a moment's notice from land and subs, a dozen carriers at sea and one of the greatest trained standing armies on earth, and you're currently fighting...geurilla fighters riding around in trucks, firing ak-47's and planting bombs made from old munitions
No nuclear superpower will touch you, as they well know what the consequences will be
Wait, aren't we supposed to be talking about the common wealth verses USAN ?
Paranoid from what? The US has those toys because of it's huge spending. In Iraq you had clear targets, flat terrains, huge populations in large cities along the main rivers and you had a clear object. The US is now rebuilding there. In Afhganistan, it's the exact opposite and the coloation forces are starting from scratch. @ Topic. Put up the woeful economies, military junta's and generally poor equipment of South America against The UK, Canada, India, Australia, New Zeland, Large parts of Africa and it's one sided like a gang rape.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 23. 2012 19:53
MukMuk
|
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Foxtrot125
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Ajuha
Yes, just look at the amazing USA with their endless budget that ran their economy right into the ground. Or do you think the BILLIONS they spend on disposible stuff like missiles guns and ammo per year, is a good thing?
The spending increased with the two invasions of Iraq and Afhganistan and now the US is making it's cut backs as well as withdrawing from Iraq. The way I see it, spending billions to remain the sole democratic superpower for decades is a good thing. Unless you'd like to see Chinese/Russian Battlegroups conducting exercises 50 miles out to sea from New York.
Paranoid much?
The Us's military spending is insane. You've got hundreds of nuclear missiles waiting on a moment's notice from land and subs, a dozen carriers at sea and one of the greatest trained standing armies on earth, and you're currently fighting...geurilla fighters riding around in trucks, firing ak-47's and planting bombs made from old munitions
No nuclear superpower will touch you, as they well know what the consequences will be
Wait, aren't we supposed to be talking about the common wealth verses USAN ?
Paranoid from what? The US has those toys because of it's huge spending. In Iraq you had clear targets, flat terrains, huge populations in large cities along the main rivers and you had a clear object. The US is now rebuilding there. In Afhganistan, it's the exact opposite and the coloation forces are starting from scratch. @ Topic. Put up the woeful economies, military junta's and generally poor equipment of South America against The UK, Canada, India, Australia, New Zeland, Large parts of Africa and it's one sided like a gang rape.
We aren't saying that the USAN is gonna have a very very good chance against the CV or British Empire V.2.0 but I think we are underestimating the abillities and armed forces of the USAN. Sure Argentina has a virutally unexistent military but that doesn't mean most countries are on par with Argentina. For example the Brazillians actually have a working CV and 100 or so ships in commission that I guess aren't crappy. They have French diesel subs and are going to acquire nuke subs. (Although HM's nuke subs will surely outclass anything they have)
The USAN might also have the advantage since everyone is pretty much gonna fight on their continent, and the fact that Guyana is the only CW country around South America.
And who knows what crazy people like Chavez are gonna do. Send wave after wave of Venezulan army men into the machine gun/artillery fire of the lets say Royal Malay Regiment and the Royal Australian Artillery; while the Royal Air Force provides aerial superiority and dropping bombs from above.
As his efforts prove futile he sends even more into the fight when suddenly Indian/Bangaladeshi Navy destroyers come and bombard the hell out of them.
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 24. 2012 15:01
SaseCaiBlele
|
Originally Posted by Falcon91
Originally Posted by SaseCaiBlele
Originally Posted by Sindher
Originally Posted by Tomm96
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Just because you don't want NATO involved doesn't means NATO won't interfere with such a situation. By only saying "No NATO" you're killing the entire point of discussion, and deforming it into a "what if the entire USAN fights against the Swiss Navy" joke.
Unless you have a way to shut up the United States, that's another story. But if you can make the US shut up on matters like this, you don't need a war at all.
Well USA cant really start a war today since they still got 1-2 war going on and China is starting to demanding theres money back.
But a fact I know Sweden (might be a small country but for us we have a big high tech army/navy/air force) would support UK and theres allies as long they keep to the Geneva convention.
But as they did on the 80s UK while win but they while pay a high price if they get main part of USAN against them, but still UK while then have NATO behind them.
Don't underestimate the US just because of what you've seen in Afhganistan. How long did it take to defeat Saddam and his forces in Iraq? A few weeks? Look at the US Defence Budget and just imagine the earth destoying toys they could have created.
all world vs km.....
us vs corea war
us vs
Vietnam
us vs saddam first strike(patriot missile ftw 99% failed target few made and was on all news best missile from world..epic)
us vs somalian rebels? lolz this..are u mad ?
Sindher was crap batle on monte cassino ? few vs...uk..indians..?
uk is 1 big shadow now..sas that remains on top..but the rest
why not uk vs russia
vs china
vs france
vs turkey( often beat uk so far )
gives a better ...
I'm going to Correct you. Allies V Axis WW1 Axis: Turkey, Germany, Austrio-Hungary, and Italy (for the first part of the war) Allies: France (and colonial holdings), UK (and colonial holdings), US, Canada, Russia (before it had to pull out due to a collaspe in government), Italy (second part of the war), and others. Allie V Axi WW2 Axis: Iraq (small part), Germany, Hungary, Slovakia (After being demanded by Hitler, and then becoming a puppet), Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand (small role), Finland (small role), San Marino (small role), and the puppets of each of the major powers. Allies: US, UK, France, USSR, Yugoslovia, China, Poland, Cyprus, The commonwealth, India, Brazil, Pan-American Union, and multiple others. Korean war China, DRPK, and USSR VS United Nations (Canada, US, South Korea, UK, Commonwealth Countries, and others) Vietnam war China, USSR, and North Vietnam VS United States, Australia, and South Vietnam. Yes the USSR and China did help in Korea and Vietnam they supplied pilots as well as weapons, planes, soldiers, and etc... Gulf war 1: Iraq VS United Nations Coalition Iraq did the first strike yes, and the patriot was a failure at that point but they were deployed against advisement from the USAF Air Defence Commands recommendations. Another thing you see to know little of is that the 3rd Armoured Division was less than 20 miles from Bagdhad in under 48 hours. Somalian Conflict Somalian Rebels, Muslim Rebel groups, Al-queda and other terror groups VS US, Pakistan, and Malaysia. The US had under 1000 men involved within that operation, if the US had've really wanted to commit to the battle of Mogadishu then they could have taken the city completely over. They were also under UN orders as well to not take a full force in, the force that went into Mogadishu was under 500 men. So until you have your facts right, don't post. The SAS is one of the top Special forces, the Russian Spetz Naz, the US SFOD-D (Delta), Canada's JTF2 and CSOR, and Israeles Mossad are the top special forces in the world.
Allies V Axis WW1
Axis: Turkey, Germany, Austrio-Hungary, and Italy (for the first part of the war)
Gallipoli.....
Korean war
after 1 big failed atack Us start..HELP 911(Canada, US, South Korea, UK, Commonwealth Countries, and others white knights save from shame us)
Vietnam war
The first episode, known as "Indochina War", laste
|
-
Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations
04. 24. 2012 19:38
MukMuk
|
I swear, I can't wait until the Queen Elizabeth class CV's are commissioned. With its carrier strike group of
1 Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier
2-3 Type 45 Destroyers
2 Type 23 Frigates
2 Astute class Submarines
1 Wave Class Royal Fleet Oiler or supply ship
It will be truly amazing to see the Royal Navy have carrier strike groups again.
|
|
|
