Editted from: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

[Giancarlo]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Yeah, during World War 2 the T-34 was considered one of the best tanks of the war. With its sloped armor, it actually influenced german, british and american tank designs. Even German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt called the T-34 "the best tank in the world". Its only real weakness was its poorly trained crews. America really has it lucky. The army gets so much training.

That was WW2. Also the best tank I would consider is the Tiger 2. Far better then the T-34, but few were produced because the Germans got it out far too late.

The King Tiger 2 was the best of the best. Only 50 were produced, but it produced so much havoc in Ardennes and nearly broke through allied lines which could of been a disaster if it did.

 

[moneyman1]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Giancarlo, wow, I'm not a mod. but Jesus, if you have stuff to say, don't double, tripple or quadruple (I can't spell) and it was pretty annoying, you making fun of people, and just being a jerk, and then going on after the post, to find that you have posted, yet again!

Anyways.

I would love to meet while playing CS 1.6, cause that's the only one that I am... any good at...

I like COD a lot, that's really fun, but I am no good at it.

Just give me a time (central time, in the USA) and a place and I can try and get on there.

Sounds like lots of fun!!!

 

[Giancarlo]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

I had to make my point and had to keep it clear and consistent to whom I'm responding to. The real jerks are the ones like LK around here who love to piss people off for no good reason. Why he is a moderator is a bit beyond me. He intentionally goes after people, and tries to piss them off.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Oh great several people to debunk...

The Art of war is very much alive no matter how you want to paint it. I just think of you as ridiculous and stupid (no offense or anything but that's my view point of you right now). If I were you I'd read up. The Art of war is about how you direct your troops and how efficient these troops are. That's a fact. There is plenty of honor. And again 200 rounds per minute is less then a semi-automatic M-16 shoots. Honor is about the camaderie that exists in the armed forces. It exists in the US Military for example. And skill plays a great part. As shown with the complete defeat of Saddam's military, where marksmenship was lacking.

I am often ridiculous... The Art of War is this; that is why the Art of War is gone - people don't do this - they direct their bombs. They don't even direct their bombs from where the bombers take of; they direct their bombs from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Politicians direct the bombs with the assistance of the Military, its the Art of Politics - everything has to be supported by the administration and all the best wars have been hardly supported by the administration; and pushed through by a single leader or external force. The Napoleonic Wars; the British didn't want to help with anything but Naval Power; Army Leaders and the Regent who's name leaves me now pushed it through. World War II we sat back and let Hitler do what he wanted for a long time - finally Hitler had to push it through.

Honour goes beyond the armed forces; and camaraderie between men in the armed forces is but a tiny thing in that. Bombing is not honourable; Archery is only honourable because it takes a good deal of skill but shooting at somebody with a machine gun that can kill with no skill at all is not, especially from the vast distances available now.


That quality of camaraderie is only in the American Military because its a Military. Most of the men in the American Army would do nothing worthy of honour to save their comrades - going in with superior firepower, superior weapons, superior numbers and hours of planning to make sure no one should die for instance; is not camaraderie. Its friendship.


Saddam's Military hardly mobilised; and even if it had it was a small force of twits forced into the position. Only the Guard would have been a challenge and they would have faced an army superior in all but a few ways; those being spirit and ability.

Oh shut up. I'm just sick of your rhetoric and plain stupidity. It is just making me get really pissed off. If you don't like I don't give a damn. You don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you have even picked up the Art of War by Sun Tzu or Machiavelli.

My rhetoric keeps me vibrant and alive Well that's good; because you personal feelings matter to me in no way - just like I would not expect you to take my personal feelings into account... if I had any on the matter. It may be strange... but myself and The Art of War have no crossed paths. I do not attempt to be a Master Tactician nor do I intend to Study into the Art. This is The Art of War according to a viscous Italian and a Chinese Man who's Biography talks of his living in the 6th Century BC and his The Art of War talks of chariots used during the 4th Century BC. Although I'm sure its an interesting piece of Work I doubt either authur's opinions.

Your own damn opinion. Doesn't mean much to me now does it? You don't know what you are talking about. We still deal with divisions and regiments. In this day and age, it does matter where you place your troops. This is art. The war of today is art (however grotesque that may sound, it is the truth). So please spare me.

How can we work on anything but opinion when we are talking about opinions. There can be nothing but opinion when talking about something that has no answer. The usefulness of an item; and the honour of using it are entirely seperate things and although it is possible to define the fore it is not to define the latter. Hence; Alvino knows better than anybody else what he's talking about; because what he talks about is what he thinks. Leonardo DeVinci is a countryman of yours is he not? Through Alvino's description you should hence be able to realise a point - the Art of Art is gone too. People do not paint - they throw buckets of paint against a canvas and call it Art. The same, as in the description, as War has become. There have alwasy been command structures - the fact they continue today does not mean anyhting about the Art of War. Does Sun Tzu talk of the names of your organisational groups being of importance in The Art of War?

I had to make my point and had to keep it clear and consistent to whom I'm responding to. The real jerks are the ones like LK around here who love to piss people off for no good reason. Why he is a moderator is a bit beyond me. He intentionally goes after people, and tries to piss them off.

I was under the impression people who comment with opinion don't know what they're talking about? If I piss you off with my opinions then you will have to learn to get over it - we have had the discussion about your Sexuality - is there a difference between your sexuality, and my opinions?

I am a Moderator because we had serious Spam problems - I decided to tell David I would take the post knowing that he had been offering for a few months at the point. I go after nobody; if you feel specifically in my line of annoyance it could be because you are one of the few people on here who says anything that needs being debated thoroughly. Whoever starts these things by pointing out something that the other disagrees on - it still takes another to reply to it and if you cannot take good debate then do not reply and you will not be replied to.

I personally find this enjoying.

 

[Giancarlo]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Consider this post a bunker buster to this crap.

I am often ridiculous... The Art of War is this; that is why the Art of War is gone - people don't do this - they direct their bombs. They don't even direct their bombs from where the bombers take of; they direct their bombs from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Politicians direct the bombs with the assistance of the Military, its the Art of Politics - everything has to be supported by the administration and all the best wars have been hardly supported by the administration; and pushed through by a single leader or external force. The Napoleonic Wars; the British didn't want to help with anything but Naval Power; Army Leaders and the Regent who's name leaves me now pushed it through. World War II we sat back and let Hitler do what he wanted for a long time - finally Hitler had to push it through.

You don't realize the facts. Strategy is still very much used today and you can find that in any aspect of war. The biggest, most intriguing aspect of warfare for me is submarine warfare. It is the most interesting and most exciting. The Art of War has been an ever-changing topic. When the bow and arrow were invented the way war worked changed. When the chinese invented gun-powder, things changed drastically too. I don't think you know much about what you are talking about let alone the facts in this topic. In WWII, Hitler was allowed to do the things he wanted for a while because the American people did not want to fight another war, and it was not Hitler who caused the US to join but rather the Japanese, and because of alliances between Japan and Germany this forced Germany to declare war on the US.

Honour goes beyond the armed forces; and camaraderie between men in the armed forces is but a tiny thing in that. Bombing is not honourable; Archery is only honourable because it takes a good deal of skill but shooting at somebody with a machine gun that can kill with no skill at all is not, especially from the vast distances available now.

This is BS. You can claim that and you don't have any reason for it. Just because you say it, does not make it true. Right now marksmenship, camoflague, and secrecy is what war is about. War isn't about going and playing a "gentlemen's war" as you want, but about killing. In this day and age, it depends on military intelligence. That's the true art of war. Since the Roman times and before that, military intelligence is what defines the true art of war. Sun Tzu made it clear that military intelligence, the intelligence we have on the opposing side, is a key for victory. War is not a good thing and Sun Tzu has said it is important to make it short. If you ever fired a machine gun, as I have, it takes skill and not to mention more muscle power then I have.

going in with superior firepower, superior weapons, superior numbers and hours of planning to make sure no one should die for instance; is not camaraderie. Its friendship.

Most of the men in the American Army would do nothing worthy of honour to save their comrades? It damn well is camaraderie, you ill-informed blabbering man.

Saddam's Military hardly mobilised; and even if it had it was a small force of twits forced into the position. Only the Guard would have been a challenge and they would have faced an army superior in all but a few ways; those being spirit and ability.

Saddam's military refused because its spirits were low and it fell apart. The guard was never a challenge and fell apart. And the Vietnamese were fanatical, and they manage to outdo the United States. The US shouldn't of been in Vietnam, but never underestimate the opposing side. The insurgency in Iraq is in no way comparable to Vietnam, but it is important we make sure these elections go forward.

My rhetoric keeps me vibrant and alive Well that's good; because you personal feelings matter to me in no way - just like I would not expect you to take my personal feelings into account... if I had any on the matter. It may be strange... but myself and The Art of War have no crossed paths. I do not attempt to be a Master Tactician nor do I intend to Study into the Art. This is The Art of War according to a viscous Italian and a Chinese Man who's Biography talks of his living in the 6th Century BC and his The Art of War talks of chariots used during the 4th Century BC. Although I'm sure its an interesting piece of Work I doubt either authur's opinions.

Your rhetoric is hideous and makes no sense. Let alone it is irrelevant to the reality and has no facts involved. I have been studying the Art of War independently. It isn't what I'll do with my life, but it is a topic I like to look at. Machiavelli is a viscous (SIC) italian? Hahahah... there you go with your damn rhetoric again. Sun Tzu is one of the most important and most influential authors of all time and he has influenced a damn load of military commanders in the future. Including General Patton, the Desert Fox Erwin Rommel, Zhukhov and countless others.

Hence; Alvino knows better than anybody else what he's talking about; because what he talks about is what he thinks. Leonardo DeVinci is a countryman of yours is he not?

I know what I talk about. So please give me a damn break. Alvino is the least credible person here and shouldn't be listened to.

Through Alvino's description you should hence be able to realise a point - the Art of Art is gone too. People do not paint - they throw buckets of paint against a canvas and call it Art. The same, as in the description, as War has become. There have alwasy been command structures - the fact they continue today does not mean anyhting about the Art of War. Does Sun Tzu talk of the names of your organisational groups being of importance in The Art of War?

This is bullshit. Utter B.S. The way art is done may have changed but it is an ever-evolving subject just as war is. I find your descriptions hypocritical let alone not grasping the reality. War was not meant for two opposing regiments to fight a gentlemen's war. That era of delusion is gone. It was the Victorian era, and some before that. Sun Tzu is an author dating back thousand of years. You are just not realizing of the reality or the facts. Please read some books and maybe you would understand. The only thing that is gone here is your common sense.

I was under the impression people who comment with opinion don't know what they're talking about? If I piss you off with my opinions then you will have to learn to get over it - we have had the discussion about your Sexuality - is there a difference between your sexuality, and my opinions?

You should be removed because of gross misconduct and misuse of power, and flagrant disregard for the atmosphere of this forum. I would remove you in an instant and then ban you. You have no decency. And my sexuality? Oh that being the other argument I won against you?

I personally find this idiotic.

 

[Chaos Affinity]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Consider this post a bunker buster to this crap.



You don't realize the facts. Strategy is still very much used today and you can find that in any aspect of war. The biggest, most intriguing aspect of warfare for me is submarine warfare. It is the most interesting and most exciting. The Art of War has been an ever-changing topic. When the bow and arrow were invented the way war worked changed. When the chinese invented gun-powder, things changed drastically too. I don't think you know much about what you are talking about let alone the facts in this topic. In WWII, Hitler was allowed to do the things he wanted for a while because the American people did not want to fight another war, and it was not Hitler who caused the US to join but rather the Japanese, and because of alliances between Japan and Germany this forced Germany to declare war on the US.



This is BS. You can claim that and you don't have any reason for it. Just because you say it, does not make it true. Right now marksmenship, camoflague, and secrecy is what war is about. War isn't about going and playing a "gentlemen's war" as you want, but about killing. In this day and age, it depends on military intelligence. That's the true art of war. Since the Roman times and before that, military intelligence is what defines the true art of war. Sun Tzu made it clear that military intelligence, the intelligence we have on the opposing side, is a key for victory. War is not a good thing and Sun Tzu has said it is important to make it short. If you ever fired a machine gun, as I have, it takes skill and not to mention more muscle power then I have.



Most of the men in the American Army would do nothing worthy of honour to save their comrades? It damn well is camaraderie, you ill-informed blabbering man.



Saddam's military refused because its spirits were low and it fell apart. The guard was never a challenge and fell apart. And the Vietnamese were fanatical, and they manage to outdo the United States. The US shouldn't of been in Vietnam, but never underestimate the opposing side. The insurgency in Iraq is in no way comparable to Vietnam, but it is important we make sure these elections go forward.



Your rhetoric is hideous and makes no sense. Let alone it is irrelevant to the reality and has no facts involved. I have been studying the Art of War independently. It isn't what I'll do with my life, but it is a topic I like to look at. Machiavelli is a viscous (SIC) italian? Hahahah... there you go with your damn rhetoric again. Sun Tzu is one of the most important and most influential authors of all time and he has influenced a damn load of military commanders in the future. Including General Patton, the Desert Fox Erwin Rommel, Zhukhov and countless others.



I know what I talk about. So please give me a damn break. Alvino is the least credible person here and shouldn't be listened to.



This is bullshit. Utter B.S. The way art is done may have changed but it is an ever-evolving subject just as war is. I find your descriptions hypocritical let alone not grasping the reality. War was not meant for two opposing regiments to fight a gentlemen's war. That era of delusion is gone. It was the Victorian era, and some before that. Sun Tzu is an author dating back thousand of years. You are just not realizing of the reality or the facts. Please read some books and maybe you would understand. The only thing that is gone here is your common sense.



You should be removed because of gross misconduct and misuse of power, and flagrant disregard for the atmosphere of this forum. I would remove you in an instant and then ban you. You have no decency. And my sexuality? Oh that being the other argument I won against you?

I personally find this idiotic.

I agree, this is getting idiotic, this is a discussion of opinons, not insults. Would a mod please lock this forum before any more insults are exchanged.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Consider this post a bunker buster to this crap.

You don't realize the facts. Strategy is still very much used today and you can find that in any aspect of war. The biggest, most intriguing aspect of warfare for me is submarine warfare. It is the most interesting and most exciting. The Art of War has been an ever-changing topic. When the bow and arrow were invented the way war worked changed. When the chinese invented gun-powder, things changed drastically too. I don't think you know much about what you are talking about let alone the facts in this topic. In WWII, Hitler was allowed to do the things he wanted for a while because the American people did not want to fight another war, and it was not Hitler who caused the US to join but rather the Japanese, and because of alliances between Japan and Germany this forced Germany to declare war on the US.

I was not talking about the US Hitler started World War II by invading Poland? Or did World War II start only when America joined - or that nobody started stopping him until America joined? You know less than I if you believe that.

This is BS. You can claim that and you don't have any reason for it. Just because you say it, does not make it true. Right now marksmenship, camoflague, and secrecy is what war is about. War isn't about going and playing a "gentlemen's war" as you want, but about killing. In this day and age, it depends on military intelligence. That's the true art of war. Since the Roman times and before that, military intelligence is what defines the true art of war. Sun Tzu made it clear that military intelligence, the intelligence we have on the opposing side, is a key for victory. War is not a good thing and Sun Tzu has said it is important to make it short. If you ever fired a machine gun, as I have, it takes skill and not to mention more muscle power then I have.

Military Intelligence is a fine thing. I pointed out at no point that it was not a fine thing - the Gentleman's War involves to a great point Military Intelligence. War can be short while sticking to Honour; there have been many wars shorter than modern wars involving larger forces and stronger opponents. Strategy is not the same, and its not as important - given the power of some militaries today with the air power they wield even I could plan a war against Iraq and win. The civilian casualties would be drastically higher as that would not be in my plans but it would not be difficult to win. Even if I could not use Nuclear Bombs. I could not plan a proper war.

Most of the men in the American Army would do nothing worthy of honour to save their comrades? It damn well is camaraderie, you ill-informed blabbering man.

Not as an insult of course; but are you actually capable of doing this without resorting to insults? It is an opinion - but as I said before its all about opinion when it comes to things like this. Right and wrong are clouded in your beliefs and personal situations - so not even your insult was completely correct; as my beliefs on what is worthy of honour are apparently vastly different to yours. If indeed you have any opinions on honour whatsoever.

Saddam's military refused because its spirits were low and it fell apart. The guard was never a challenge and fell apart. And the Vietnamese were fanatical, and they manage to outdo the United States. The US shouldn't of been in Vietnam, but never underestimate the opposing side. The insurgency in Iraq is in no way comparable to Vietnam, but it is important we make sure these elections go forward.

My Spirits would be low against an American Army; wouldn't yours? I'm personally annoyed that they didn't put up a fight because they really should have but still - you can't blame them. Have any Communist or Fascist Parties been included in these free Elections? Its a question not a point - I don't actually know.

Your rhetoric is hideous and makes no sense. Let alone it is irrelevant to the reality and has no facts involved. I have been studying the Art of War independently. It isn't what I'll do with my life, but it is a topic I like to look at. Machiavelli is a viscous (SIC) italian? Hahahah... there you go with your damn rhetoric again. Sun Tzu is one of the most important and most influential authors of all time and he has influenced a damn load of military commanders in the future. Including General Patton, the Desert Fox Erwin Rommel, Zhukhov and countless others.

Machiavelli was; he isn't because he's dead. You can read up on him if you really want. 'Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, his name would be synonymous with deviousness, cruelty, and willfully destructive rationality' and so on. Doubting their opinions does not specifically mean it isn't important. I merely pointed out the confusion of the man whose life seemed to go on for at least 200 years.

I know what I talk about. So please give me a damn break. Alvino is the least credible person here and shouldn't be listened to.

This is what I do not completely understand about you. You seem both unwilling to realise meaning in anything anybody says however - you demand the realisation of everything you say as truth. I have pointed out that all comments on Machine Guns and Honour are all opinion; that is no rhetoric and you may deny it all you want. Insult me all you like, I am found of debate and realise people do get angry - but Alvino has made no such point and you should not merely insult his credibility without even debating a thing with him. Saying things are rhetoric or stupid is the stupid person's way out of a debate. Not even that - but you did not comment on what I said; if you read it you obviously didn't understand it. Opinion's, while debatable, cannot be fully wrong or fully right. Your knowledge of what you talk about is not at question in that snippit. Are you the only one here who should be listened to?

This is bullshit. Utter B.S. The way art is done may have changed but it is an ever-evolving subject just as war is. I find your descriptions hypocritical let alone not grasping the reality. War was not meant for two opposing regiments to fight a gentlemen's war. That era of delusion is gone. It was the Victorian era, and some before that. Sun Tzu is an author dating back thousand of years. You are just not realizing of the reality or the facts. Please read some books and maybe you would understand. The only thing that is gone here is your common sense.

You did not actually answer my question as to you point...

War has always been that. In Sun Tzu's era great hordes of men fought each other - and though bloody it is the gentleman's war. Honour was gained and lost on battlefields even before Sun Tzu. I would have thought you would know this having read the Book? The Gentleman's War did not start and stop - it stopped when technology began to allow people to kill at distances it would take weeks to walk, months and years to walk. It began when people were able to kill people at distances they could not see and could not also be fired back at. The Gentleman's War is not that - it is to fight your enemy, while not necessarily on equal terms on personal terms. To give your enemy the honour of being able to fight back - not trying to think of ways to stop people from getting missiles to you while thinking of ways to make missiles not possible to be stopped by the enemy.

You should be removed because of gross misconduct and misuse of power, and flagrant disregard for the atmosphere of this forum. I would remove you in an instant and then ban you. You have no decency. And my sexuality? Oh that being the other argument I won against you?

I personally find this idiotic.

Misconduct? Misuse of Power? That's something you'll have to prove before you can have been removed in an instant and banned. Its a big thing to say for someone who resorts to insults when they're debating.
Your sexuality is none of my concern - the debate was not really even against myself - it was more people against you, and me commenting on my opinions. The one who gives up is the looser; because none can win when it is about opinions. I pointed out that thing because many from here found it annoying, offensive even to at least one, probably more - it has been accepted by that mass. My opinions whether annoying, offensive or otherwise are exactly that - opinions and like your sexuality we must not resort to general insulting. It can be said your opinions are just as extreme as mine; probably exactly the opposite. I imagine top centre of the spectrum and bottom centre of the spectrum would.

I agree, this is getting idiotic, this is a discussion of opinons, not insults. Would a mod please lock this forum before any more insults are exchanged.

Insults should not be being said anywhere here. I would edit them out but I am in the debate and it would be viewed as dishonourable (probably only by myself but hey). If anybody feels the insults are becoming unreasonable, PM myself or a different Moderator with either the phrase you wish editted or the Thread to be closed. This does not include Giancarlo - of whom it would be dishonourable to get help.

 

[rakedog]

On the topic of tanks.

Yeah, the tiger two would have won the war if Germany produced it like 42 or 43. It was one awesome tank. However, the T-34 was great because it was very effictive, and it was really cheap to make in mass production (All of the factories east of moscow were working hard to supply the east with enormous numbers of these). In modern terms, Abram is probably the best tank overall (though it can be rather easily destroyed if hit to the side by an RPG-7 missle (as shown several times in Iraq, but on very few occasions). The T - 90 and T- 95 are still nice tanks, cost less, and weight less then the M1, and plus can cross deeper water, which makes them better at going through rough terrain, and makes for a better "gurilla warfare" tank then the M1. Head to head though, the newer version of the M1 will probably win against any modern tank when going head to head.

 

[alvino]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

LOL Yeah, in WW2 the american's Shermans tanks sucked crap. The only advantage the Shermans had were in numbers. The cannon sucked, the armor underneath was thin (prone to german tellermine explosions). The only good thing was that it was easily mass produced. The germans had hella good tanks. Very good cannons, thick armor, but wasnt easily mass produced. If they had produced more Tiger tanks, then Germany would've had a bigger chance to win the war.

 

[rakedog]

Re: Lets All Meet Up On A Game

Well, germany did make a lot of tigers, they were just crushed in Russia. If they made a lot of tiger II's they would have won. Maybe we should start a tank/weapons thread or something...