NEw president!!

[Brookfield]

Both use the apache.... yeah.... sure your apache is better since it's american?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_WAH-64_Apache
(yeah wiki is a crappy source but you can easily confirm that both use the apache if you don't trust wiki)

Brilliant that, comparing the two Apaches!!

 

[spywarebanisher]

why would there be any land fites at all if the whole war is to be fought using a keyboard? fun...RTS! and dudemcbob1234567890, why did u say that china was going to fite the us? no reason for anyone of them to fite each other except for the fact that the us is protecting taiwan.

 

[Rudster8161]

And you can go ahead and fly those f-117's straight into destruction. That aircraft doesn't stand a chance to get even close to a modern ship with anti-air capabilities. FYI, the stealth technology is VERY outdated and can be detected with pretty much any modern radar.

radar has been pretty much the same for the last 30 years expect the range is getting longer, it deflects radar dude, get your facts straight. ok even if you think it can get caught than we will throw a B-2 at you, NEITHER plane can be detected, i cant find in article on it though but no radar on earth can detect because the principle of radar has never changed. you send a signal and it bounces back off metal objects, well stealth absorbs some radar signals and deflects some, there is no chance of being caught. in 1991 F-117's penerated the most heavily air defended city in the world, Baghdad, Iraq. the AA guns didnt go off until the bombs had exploded. no SAMS went off ever because they couldnt get a radar\heat lock.
EDIT:
if it was truly detactable than it would get more than 700ish hits on google of "F-117A Detectable"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...n-US:official&q=f-117A+detectable&btnG=Search

ohh and one more thing. "Only reason you have the F-35 is because we designed it" is just... well...idiotic to say. UK and many other countries have been funding the research and helped to design the thing.

we spend trillions more dollars than you do. yeah you helped but we particapted much more in the reasearch of the stealth tech.
PROOF:
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/compare/13333462

Then you say "better tanks". So, why is the Abrams better than the Challenger 2? Ohh right.. it isn't. They are pretty equal, though I'd say the Challenger is more advanced and a little better.

becuase you guys havent proved that it is combat effective. in the invasion of kuwait we had ~2000 M1A1's, not the later M1A2's, agaisnt ~3500 iraqi tanks. we only lost 4 tanks in total, our tanks have been tested in a very large tank engagement, yours hasnt.

Both use the apache.... yeah.... sure your apache is better since it's american?

only reason you have it is because we allowed...cant think of the manafacter.... to sell them to you.

please, don't lock this thread. It's one of the most hilarious threads in ages. Seeing rudster getting owned over and over again is so funny I can't stop laughing. (and rudster, I don't mean to offed you in any way)
Seriously, this is a very entertaining thread.

how am i getting owned, i try to have a come debate but your like "rud's getting owned", besides i already know who has the better military, thats enough for me,

already proved that a brazilian car mechanic has more military training than your "professional" soldiers. So there goes the "as good training as britains"

we have simmilar training programs, so your dissing your training just as much as you ours.

EDIT

we beat you once when you guys "had the best military in the world". so i guess we dont have to have the best military in world to beat you guys

 

[Celegorm]

OK, that's one thing of proof to back up the spending, but what about the others?

 

[compguy91]

I don't think Rudster is getting owned. Points are being made from both American and non-American sides. Seems like an equal sided debate to me. If anyone is getting owned, it's the original thread starter for failure to back up his arbitrary statements with reputable sources. Actually I just looked through this thread and the original poster has not posted one link to a source, and has only copied and pasted an article which also had no sources to back it up and was even more arbitrary rambling.

 

[Rudster8161]

The US 1st Armored Division's 2nd Brigade and the Republican Guard's Medina

Luminous Division engaged in the largest tank battle of the War. M1A1's record

tank kills at ranges over 3200 meters, well over expectations. US Night FLIR and

vision devices totally dominate Soviet equipment and create massive kills with

virtually no losses.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ses&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
ok there was 9 from an unconfirmed source, i got my info from a TV show so somewhere between 4-9

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ses&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a

If additional training is to be taken into account, Royal Marine "specialist" training (similar to US Marine MOS school) comes after their 32 week original course.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...lar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a
and we have 100,000's more marines than the UK

Challenger 2 has seen operational service in Bosnia and Kosovo. British Army Challenger 2 tanks were deployed on active service in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...yed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
only 2 were deployed, your tanks are not proven yet, until they are the M1 remains at the top of the tree for best modern tank.

and i cant find ANY article on google saying the F-117 is detectable. even people who thing the sky is really red cant come up with any type of proof\far fetched yet belivable story as why it can be detected.

here are some more facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_(CVN-68)
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Royal_Navy_.28United_Kingdom.29
A. ours can hold much more planes
B. much better planes, the F\A-18 Hornet is far better than the Harrier
C. we have 4 times as many our 12 to your 3
we also have good attack submarines that can infiltrate complex sonar arrays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine
and a trident sub can make a land mass about the size of North America uninhabitable for 200 years, and destroy everything on that land mass
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm

 

[Rudster8161]

FFS Learn to read! I said, britain currently has the most advanced war ship, I never said anything about crew, weapons, or anything, I said britain currently has the most advanced war ship.

ok, WHEN the george W bush sets sail the US will have the currently most technologically advanced warship, (I'll just believe you, although TBH I await it's reports as the most technologically advanced war ship in recognized engineering press -which I haven't yet seen)...

so right now, Britain does have the most technologically advanced ship. it won't be that way forever, but it does now.

and UNTIL the next latest greatest ship is launched it does, the subtext of your post agrees with what I'm saying, but you'll never just write it, I've learned that most posters on forums are far too arrogant to just come out and say, yes, in this one particular instance I was in fact wrong.



it has a trained crew, it was launched last year, it's a ship for war- a war ship, it was built as a war ship, it's primary function is war, it's a war ship!


I did, hardly authoritative, but statistically yanks are five times more likely to die in iraq than limeys are. I've already posted proof of that (so far 1.5% of all americans who've gone to iraq have come home in boxes compared to 0.3% of britains, I'll not bother to calculate the percentage of the britains who are dead that were killed by americans, but it's likely to be around 5-10%) or percentage of Americans killed by British...

proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rudster_knows_more_than_anone_else_cause_hes_so_leet
/sarcasm

really I'm awaiting your proof.

You've barely reached secondary school, yet you know more about the advanced engineering than I do, after I've studied engineering to a professional level and am a member of the worlds leading engineering professional body? truthfully, unless you go on to study engineering to university level, I can say in this instance (and with what I was talking about) I know more than you'll ever know - and if you want proof I can always scan my degree certificate.

basically what I'm saying is STFU... I posted you proof about the facts of what I said, I'm still awaiting any kind of reasonable response...
that does't mean just saying you know more than you nah nah nah...

currently I've only proved that I know more... by posting facts, figures citing references... not just saying something and then following it by saying, yes true honest I know more than you and you'll just have to believe me!

well done, you paraphrased my post, I already said that earlier... care to repeat anything else I said? -though also as I said before, statistically speaking Basra, -Iraq's second city currently under Britain's control is more dangerous than Bagdad.
that's technically not true, you're military spending in Iraq is higher because you have more people there, it's not like you're providing much more infrastructure or giving some kind of handouts to Iraqis or anything like that!

by sheer numbers alone, if there were a quarter of a million UK soldiers there I'm sure that they would hod equal territory, however there is not, frankly Britain does not have the money to 'throw' at another country -especially a country that doesn't want us there... and if you look properly at the figures you'll see that America doesn't really have the money either!



firstly, Britain and France fought for three years before America finally decided to get off it's arse and contribute anything to the effort of the second world war, don't pretend like you're some kind of gallant saviour, you;re simply not. you sat around counting pennies deciding what side you wanted to be on.

second.
Nato is North Atlantic treaty organisation. it's primary statement is:



surely with your vastly superior knowledge you should know that Iraq didn't attack any countries inside the treaty organization. NATO has nothing to do with this...

in fact the only world body regarding war and peace that has anything to do with it is the UN, and it was America who decided to opt-out of that decision making process when it went to war in Iraq.



FFS noob, read what I said, the ship is not invincible, but then neither are F117's planes can and will be shot down, ships can and will be sunk.

you can say as much as you like that the plane can avoid missiles, but I can say that the ship can avoid attack, also, I've already said that the ship will never be alone, it moves as a part of a fleet offering protection to the rest of the fleet and the fleet offers protection to it.

fair enough, -the ship has no defense against certain things. but you can say that about anything.

I can easily say that an American super-carrier, won't survive a nuclear bomb being dropped on the deck.
that statement is infallible -just like your's, but it doesn't even touch on the logistics of how to get the plane above a ship.



hmmm...
OK, let me explain, the revolution was a civil war, until that war finished there was no actual Americans, America wasn't formed as a nation... you didn't beat the british, because there was no you. there were government and revolutionaries.

and even then you didn't win on your own

and than there was the war of 1812 which you guys just left in the middle of the fight, wasnt really a winner in that one, if there was one it would have to be us since you guys left the fight but thats not really losing.



no we don't that's the point I'm making there is no quantative measure that you can apply to both sides

you also have more land to defend, you'd expect a bigger army, you're a bigger nation.
we've already discussed training, most people point out that american training is nothing special, in fact it was pointed out earlier in the thread that most third world contries seem to military train their street sweepers better than the US trains the average GI



you already said that you had loads more equipment but no-one to operate them!
as I said if you pulled your patriotic head out of your arse and looked around then you'd see that American isn't just the best at everything.
Britain isn't best at anything. and the whole point of being allies is that you share technology.

I'll tell you another 'fact' now the standard workhorse trail bike of the army (all Nato countries), (harley davidson MT350) is an modernization of a British bike -MT500, it is designed in Italy. and is only built by harley davidson because the US had decided that it couldn't trust it's NATO partners to be suppliers...



(why the f**k am I arguing on the internet)

there i think ive cited more sources than you.

and it doesnt matter if we were americans or not, we still thumped you our Reveloution.

 

[mammikoura]

radar has been pretty much the same for the last 30 years expect the range is getting longer, it deflects radar dude, get your facts straight. ok even if you think it can get caught than we will throw a B-2 at you, NEITHER plane can be detected, i cant find in article on it though but no radar on earth can detect because the principle of radar has never changed. you send a signal and it bounces back off metal objects, well stealth absorbs some radar signals and deflects some, there is no chance of being caught. in 1991 F-117's penerated the most heavily air defended city in the world, Baghdad, Iraq. the AA guns didnt go off until the bombs had exploded. no SAMS went off ever because they couldnt get a radar\heat lock.
EDIT:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...n-US:official&q=f-117A+detectable&btnG=Search

and then in 1999 a f-117 got shot down over bosnia by a SA-3.
Now that SA-3 had some upgrades, but keep in mind that the SA-3 system has been used since the 1960's.

One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'),

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_losses

From what I heard they managed to detect the plane by using longer wavelenghts. And yes, the material on the f-117 does absorb radio waves. Yes the shape of the aircraft does deflect radio waves. It's still not undetectable.

Also

Yugoslav and some French and German newspapers reported later that two more F 117 had been damaged and made emergency landings in Bosnia.

though those haven't been confirmed.

becuase you guys havent proved that it is combat effective. our tanks have been tested in a very large tank engagement, yours hasnt.

here is something for you to read.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm
I'll quote the few important things.

The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating. Its NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical protection) system is capable of dealing with all known threats

The Challenger 2's fire control system is the latest-generation digital computer from Computing Devices Company (CDC) of Canada and is an improved version of that installed in the US M1A1 Abrams tank.

only reason you have it is because we allowed...cant think of the manafacter.... to sell them to you.

you are right. Does it matter? You said you have better attack helicopters, you don't. Also, now that I checked out the specs of both of the apaches the brittish one seems to be quite a lot better than yours.

 

[Brookfield]

Guys guys, once again things are are nearing boiling point, Rudster, for example, whilst I agree with 99% of what you say, "STFU" was unnecessary, I've said it before, I know, but I will lock this if there's much more, so please guys make this the last time of asking.

 

[root]

there i think i've cited more sources than you.

and it doesnt matter if we were americans or not, we still thumped you our Reveloution.

first...
the American army has never beat the British army, not once not ever, never ever happened, and since we are now allies (and i can't see that changing) it never will happen. - similarly, the British army has never beat the American army

two reasons, one, as I already said there was no such thing as American before the civil war. there was a bunch of colonies, and there were colonial British, but no americans.

second, there was no American army, (aside from the fact there was no America) the civil war was fought with militia...

Oh, great, you cited urban dictionary!!!

tell you what I've got an account on there, perhaps I'll just go add some new references and then cite them.

the argument is still pointless, and I'm still yet to see any real (credible) sources of comparisons between the British and American weaponry... just because a boat is bigger it doesn't make it better, and frankly respected engineering press > source than urban dictionary.

I only said a couple of things,

Britain currently has the most advanced warship -which I proved.

also i said you don't know everything. and since you said that Britain didn't have the most advanced warship, and I proved it did, well that kind of means I proved that you don't know as much as you think you do.

me 'dissin' the British army?

hell yes- why not, (though I did already say that I didn't think that the British army was the best either)... (it's easier to see fact's when you've not just stuck you're head up your behind and said that your country is the best, patriotism is a good thing... but not all the time.

like I said, stop being a noob and learn to read.

or at least learn to be clever about your arguments, do you not notice that I've only argued specific issues that can be irrefutably proved,
first, the American army are not the worlds best,
if they were the best then
a) why would they need help?
b) why are so many dead?
c) why do you need a quarter of a million people there?
d) why are the soldiers getting killed by untrained kids and farmers.
(not just in iraq but all over the world gorilla militias are making a mockery of 'the worlds best')


anyway... lets look at military spending.

America spends trillions

no, America doesn't spend trillions, entire world military spend is estimated at 1.2 trillion (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1807/)

I fail to see how "America spends trillions" (note the plural) when the entire world spends less than that.

once again...

you're wrong.

(if I have to beat you anymore i'm going to have to start using a stick).




edit,

Guys guys, once again things are are nearing boiling point, Rudster, for example, whilst I agree with 99% of what you say, "STFU" was unnecessary, I've said it before, I know, but I will lock this if there's much more, so please guys make this the last time of asking.

he didn't say it, I did, the quote was broken by my badly formed post. (post 98)