Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Sheridan didn't killed tons of them, just few. Which is more than enough. Shadows are vulnerable to weapons fire, just like any other species. They are just "shadows", stealthy creatures with advanced tech.

__________________
[URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/]The Babylon Project homepage[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/faq.php]The Babylon Project FAQ[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fsscp/]Please support FreeSpace Source Code Project[/URL]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Sheridan didn't killed tons of them, just few. Which is more than enough. Shadows are vulnerable to weapons fire, just like any other species. They are just "shadows", stealthy creatures with advanced tech.

__________________
[URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/]The Babylon Project homepage[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/faq.php]The Babylon Project FAQ[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fsscp/]Please support FreeSpace Source Code Project[/URL]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Joutsa, Finland
Posts: 564

Trulies. My statement was little misleading. He killed few with the gun (his second favorite weapon). But he killed tons of them, he did blow the city afterall (with his favourite weapon).

Anyway, point is that in pile of guys vs. cluster of guys ground gombat the most inportant thing isn't the firepower of the standard weapon the troops carry. Only being you might have trouble killing with a shotgun is a Vorlon (and I suppose other beings of pure enrgy). Racial characteristics, tactics, and other equipment (comms, spy probes, etc.) however should also be considered.
Then ofcourse are the war machines one might use (Minbari tank! )

__________________
"I'm not saying anything. I didn't say anything then, and I'm not saying anything now." -Dukath

FREDer for [url=http://www.hot.ee/honorofomega/index.htm]Honour of Omega[/url]
Creator of Movements in the Mist campaign

Oh ****! Those idiots did it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Joutsa, Finland
Posts: 564

Trulies. My statement was little misleading. He killed few with the gun (his second favorite weapon). But he killed tons of them, he did blow the city afterall (with his favourite weapon).

Anyway, point is that in pile of guys vs. cluster of guys ground gombat the most inportant thing isn't the firepower of the standard weapon the troops carry. Only being you might have trouble killing with a shotgun is a Vorlon (and I suppose other beings of pure enrgy). Racial characteristics, tactics, and other equipment (comms, spy probes, etc.) however should also be considered.
Then ofcourse are the war machines one might use (Minbari tank! )

__________________
"I'm not saying anything. I didn't say anything then, and I'm not saying anything now." -Dukath

FREDer for [url=http://www.hot.ee/honorofomega/index.htm]Honour of Omega[/url]
Creator of Movements in the Mist campaign

Oh ****! Those idiots did it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Right, I am pretty sure that with a nuke (or at least a bit more advanced nuke then today's ones) you can blow up even First Ones, energy or not.

__________________
[URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/]The Babylon Project homepage[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/faq.php]The Babylon Project FAQ[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fsscp/]Please support FreeSpace Source Code Project[/URL]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Right, I am pretty sure that with a nuke (or at least a bit more advanced nuke then today's ones) you can blow up even First Ones, energy or not.

__________________
[URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/]The Babylon Project homepage[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/faq.php]The Babylon Project FAQ[/URL] <> [URL=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/fsscp/]Please support FreeSpace Source Code Project[/URL]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: THE BEST DAMN ROGUE NATION ON EARTH!!!
Posts: 735

And, today happy thought is...Nuclear Prolifereation.

__________________
Please don't hold our president against us-it's not like we voted for him.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Leeds, Northern England
Posts: 20

Hmm. Well, I reckon that the humans would probably be the most effective on the battlefield. A dubious honour indeed. I shall support my arguement... with logic. (As Stuart Lee used to say, On Fist of Fun et all)

Whilst it can be said that the Narn are fearsome at the 'charge the guns' attrition front, the Minbari at a warrior code and the Centauri with their daring and ingenuity, all three races are generally only excell in one field. Now, JMS clearly based these alien characteristics on the military mindsets of the different nations of WWII. I shall now generalise shamefully.

The Narn clearly are the Soviet Russians. They win due to wearing down their enemy with numbers and aggression, combined with partisan warfare. However their tactics tend to be simplistic to ensure the low-on-initiative troops have a solid plan that they can follow through. Their no-nonsense look also mirrors the Soviets.

The Minbari are like the Japanese. Proud, aloof and possessing fearsome skill. They are highly trained and are willing to die. However their arrogance is their weakness, and they often underestimate their enemy, leading to high casualties and foiled plans. Look at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, they thought they had destroyed the US fleet in a knock out blow, but had only destroyed and crippled antiquated battleships, whilst the main fleet of carriers (the vital target) were out of the area in safety.

The Centauri are obviously like the Roman empire of old. (A tremulous voice arrises from the back, "But I thought you were using WWII compari..." I cuff him smartly) Highly disciplined and motivated troops with experienced noble leaders, who are well versed in the military arts because it is a political necessity to be so. Their weakness is their vanity. They stretch themselves too thinly, never able to resist expanding a border and stretching their supply lines. They would stretch themselves too thinly and too quickly on the ground. Also they possess that weakening arrogance, like the Minbari.

(Damn, just remembered G'Kar talking about how the Centauri usually consolidate before moving on. I shall ignore such a flaw)

The humans, however, have had a long impressive history of bloodbath. To survive in the galactic conflicts the best traits of each nation would have to be called up. The Russians would be fearsome in hand to hand and brutally callous as to casualties in combat. The Americans would have the moral and dedication to follow through a war. (Though they are reluctant to lose men in peacekeeping because of vietnam amongst other things, it only takes a large visible threat and a clear objective, combined with an attack upon them to throw themselves fully into the breach. In the Pacific war the US lost one and half million men. Though their official history says otherwise, Japanese Zeros scored kill rates of four to one against the US. Even the Japanese had the better planes and pilots, the US pilots still kept fighting against hopeless odds as to their own survival)
The British armies are small but highly professional, and that dedication to multiple skills in combat and engineering and sapper work, combined with their endurance, should be a good factor.
The Chinese in their communal spirit, throughout history their armies have operated like large families. Of all armies they are the best at living off the land and cultivating their own sustainable supplies. They are also incredibly brave.
The Germans? Efficient and of an intense discipline. (Mind you, one German soldier interviewed after WWII said, "Efficient? EFFICIENT? By 1942 we were dragging everything about by (expletive deleted) horses!") They also have the best tactics of any army. (Prussians invented the wargame. They usually outguessed the allies in fights)
Apparently, the Italians had the most accurate and efficient artillery after the British. Shame about their useless officers, eh?

There are many other nations I haven't covered, each with their own benefits. Of course, each nation brings its own disadvantages. The US are hopelessly casual as to the slaughter of their troops in total war, and are neglectful in having the best equipment in top state. (Sherman tank, nicknamed 'ronsons' for a reason) The British in WWII had arrogant and blithe officers who sacrificed their men on the alter of 'sporting warfare' and who covered their own incompetance with bluster. I think you can work out the deficiencies of other troops.

But to have any hope of survival in the B5 universe, the nations of Earth would work together and combine their skills and learn off each other. Forged in the heat of battle the EA would have the best army, I reckon.

Shame, really. As I would immensely prefer it if the concept of dulce et decorum est did not exist at all.

Toodles.

P.S: This is all generalised. Every nation has cowards and heroes... blah de blah. You know what I mean.

__________________
"If you can keep your head whilst all around you lose...
Ugh! Spilt my ink!
Agh! Ink on my hands!
Eek! Ink on my shirt!
Agh! My only hope! The window!
....
AIEEEEE!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Leeds, Northern England
Posts: 20

Hmm. Well, I reckon that the humans would probably be the most effective on the battlefield. A dubious honour indeed. I shall support my arguement... with logic. (As Stuart Lee used to say, On Fist of Fun et all)

Whilst it can be said that the Narn are fearsome at the 'charge the guns' attrition front, the Minbari at a warrior code and the Centauri with their daring and ingenuity, all three races are generally only excell in one field. Now, JMS clearly based these alien characteristics on the military mindsets of the different nations of WWII. I shall now generalise shamefully.

The Narn clearly are the Soviet Russians. They win due to wearing down their enemy with numbers and aggression, combined with partisan warfare. However their tactics tend to be simplistic to ensure the low-on-initiative troops have a solid plan that they can follow through. Their no-nonsense look also mirrors the Soviets.

The Minbari are like the Japanese. Proud, aloof and possessing fearsome skill. They are highly trained and are willing to die. However their arrogance is their weakness, and they often underestimate their enemy, leading to high casualties and foiled plans. Look at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, they thought they had destroyed the US fleet in a knock out blow, but had only destroyed and crippled antiquated battleships, whilst the main fleet of carriers (the vital target) were out of the area in safety.

The Centauri are obviously like the Roman empire of old. (A tremulous voice arrises from the back, "But I thought you were using WWII compari..." I cuff him smartly) Highly disciplined and motivated troops with experienced noble leaders, who are well versed in the military arts because it is a political necessity to be so. Their weakness is their vanity. They stretch themselves too thinly, never able to resist expanding a border and stretching their supply lines. They would stretch themselves too thinly and too quickly on the ground. Also they possess that weakening arrogance, like the Minbari.

(Damn, just remembered G'Kar talking about how the Centauri usually consolidate before moving on. I shall ignore such a flaw)

The humans, however, have had a long impressive history of bloodbath. To survive in the galactic conflicts the best traits of each nation would have to be called up. The Russians would be fearsome in hand to hand and brutally callous as to casualties in combat. The Americans would have the moral and dedication to follow through a war. (Though they are reluctant to lose men in peacekeeping because of vietnam amongst other things, it only takes a large visible threat and a clear objective, combined with an attack upon them to throw themselves fully into the breach. In the Pacific war the US lost one and half million men. Though their official history says otherwise, Japanese Zeros scored kill rates of four to one against the US. Even the Japanese had the better planes and pilots, the US pilots still kept fighting against hopeless odds as to their own survival)
The British armies are small but highly professional, and that dedication to multiple skills in combat and engineering and sapper work, combined with their endurance, should be a good factor.
The Chinese in their communal spirit, throughout history their armies have operated like large families. Of all armies they are the best at living off the land and cultivating their own sustainable supplies. They are also incredibly brave.
The Germans? Efficient and of an intense discipline. (Mind you, one German soldier interviewed after WWII said, "Efficient? EFFICIENT? By 1942 we were dragging everything about by (expletive deleted) horses!") They also have the best tactics of any army. (Prussians invented the wargame. They usually outguessed the allies in fights)
Apparently, the Italians had the most accurate and efficient artillery after the British. Shame about their useless officers, eh?

There are many other nations I haven't covered, each with their own benefits. Of course, each nation brings its own disadvantages. The US are hopelessly casual as to the slaughter of their troops in total war, and are neglectful in having the best equipment in top state. (Sherman tank, nicknamed 'ronsons' for a reason) The British in WWII had arrogant and blithe officers who sacrificed their men on the alter of 'sporting warfare' and who covered their own incompetance with bluster. I think you can work out the deficiencies of other troops.

But to have any hope of survival in the B5 universe, the nations of Earth would work together and combine their skills and learn off each other. Forged in the heat of battle the EA would have the best army, I reckon.

Shame, really. As I would immensely prefer it if the concept of dulce et decorum est did not exist at all.

Toodles.

P.S: This is all generalised. Every nation has cowards and heroes... blah de blah. You know what I mean.

__________________
"If you can keep your head whilst all around you lose...
Ugh! Spilt my ink!
Agh! Ink on my hands!
Eek! Ink on my shirt!
Agh! My only hope! The window!
....
AIEEEEE!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: scotland
Posts: 1205

i would say all races would be equally effective - and that tech is pretty much not an issue - as pointed out only a vorlon is at all troublesome to kill - strength etc irreveant since in modern combat how offen does it come down to hand to hand hell the assult riffle i was issued was acuracte to 800m thats a LONG WAY well thats what the targets were at probally acurate to even greater distance much asume 300 years into future guns are going to be very very very acurate but you can onyl see so far

tanks ok minbari tanks would have an advantage but how much? a shell froma ww2 tiger tank would probally still destroy it so again acuracy becomes the issue and byt the future i assume tanks would eb very acurate and have over the horizon ranges so its down to intelligence to spot them but all dumped ina 20 km squared battlefield would be how used best tactics or had the most guns availble

as i said thoug vorlons tahts an issue 1 vorlon is well hmm while in its encounter siut needed a the power output for a very large fusion reactor to destroy so work say 5 tanks and 200 infantry once out of its suit not quite so many weapons avaible but hmmmmm damn near impossible to kill

__________________
Go Away you annoy me you pathetic blob

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: scotland
Posts: 1205

i would say all races would be equally effective - and that tech is pretty much not an issue - as pointed out only a vorlon is at all troublesome to kill - strength etc irreveant since in modern combat how offen does it come down to hand to hand hell the assult riffle i was issued was acuracte to 800m thats a LONG WAY well thats what the targets were at probally acurate to even greater distance much asume 300 years into future guns are going to be very very very acurate but you can onyl see so far

tanks ok minbari tanks would have an advantage but how much? a shell froma ww2 tiger tank would probally still destroy it so again acuracy becomes the issue and byt the future i assume tanks would eb very acurate and have over the horizon ranges so its down to intelligence to spot them but all dumped ina 20 km squared battlefield would be how used best tactics or had the most guns availble

as i said thoug vorlons tahts an issue 1 vorlon is well hmm while in its encounter siut needed a the power output for a very large fusion reactor to destroy so work say 5 tanks and 200 infantry once out of its suit not quite so many weapons avaible but hmmmmm damn near impossible to kill

__________________
Go Away you annoy me you pathetic blob

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 1901

quote:

---

Though their official history says otherwise, Japanese Zeros scored kill rates of four to one against the US. Even the Japanese had the better planes and pilots, the US pilots still kept fighting against hopeless odds as to their own survival.

---

__________________
- The Babylon Project Team

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

quote:

---

Though their official history says otherwise, Japanese Zeros scored kill rates of four to one against the US. Even the Japanese had the better planes and pilots, the US pilots still kept fighting against hopeless odds as to their own survival.

---

__________________
- IceFire
Volition Watch Project Manager
[url=http://www.volitionwatch.com]Volition Watch[/url], [url=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater]BlackWater Operations[/url], [url=http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon]The Babylon Project[/url], [url=http://terra.sourceforge.net]Machina Terra[/url], [url=http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ott/]Over The Top[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 576

quote:

---

Originally posted by KillMeNow
tanks ok minbari tanks would have an advantage but how much? a shell froma ww2 tiger tank would probally still destroy it

---

Not likely, a tiger can't even destroy a modern day tank

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 576

quote:

---

Originally posted by KillMeNow
tanks ok minbari tanks would have an advantage but how much? a shell froma ww2 tiger tank would probally still destroy it

---

Not likely, a tiger can't even destroy a modern day tank

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2894

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceFire

I said that. VS topics are fine...provided that people don't spam, flame, and use the thread as a personal dumping ground. The ideals of VS threads are ok in my book...but I'll be watching.

---

Keeping them on-topic is good too.

Nervous Pete: I'd like to nitpick: The US is not casual in any way shape or form about the loss of their own soldiers. The Shermans might be nicknamed Ronsons (after a lighter, for their unhealthy tendancy to explode) but not now. Just look at the forces America's likely to deploy: Ground troops are usually last, and they're supported to the hilt. If you want a modern look at how the US fights, the Persian Gulf is probably your best bet (the other actions the US has been involved in since aren't as large-scale, and hence have a different response)

Also, the Zero was not superior to the American planes by 1943. Properly flown, the P-38 scored some amazing successes against the Zero, and when the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were deployed, they pretty much had the Zero in every way shape and form, especially in firepower and durability. There is no way the Zero could maintain a 4-1 kill ratio, sorry, not happening. At the beginning, versus the decidedly inferior F4F Wildcat? Yes. By the time the F6F and F4U hit their stride? Hell no. Not only was the Zero inferior, they were outnumbered pretty damn fast. Both of those factors contribute to indicate they == losing badly.

Take VF-17, one of the first squadrons in the Pacific to carry the F4U Corsair. Their kill ratio was something along the lines of eleven to one. They were the top guns of their day, but they weren't alone.

Another nitpick: If I remember right, the German Tiger tank carried the 88, and an 88 could most definitely punch a hole in a T-72 or M1A1. The thing is, they'd have to get the first shot in, because the M1A1's aiming system gives them a one-shot hit probability somewhere in the 90s, I believe.
That plus it'd be far more likely for a roving F-16 to put a Maverick into that Tiger than the Tiger getting a shot off at an M1A1.

__________________
[url="http://www.dopefish.com"]swim...swim...hungry...[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2894

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceFire

I said that. VS topics are fine...provided that people don't spam, flame, and use the thread as a personal dumping ground. The ideals of VS threads are ok in my book...but I'll be watching.

---

Keeping them on-topic is good too.

Nervous Pete: I'd like to nitpick: The US is not casual in any way shape or form about the loss of their own soldiers. The Shermans might be nicknamed Ronsons (after a lighter, for their unhealthy tendancy to explode) but not now. Just look at the forces America's likely to deploy: Ground troops are usually last, and they're supported to the hilt. If you want a modern look at how the US fights, the Persian Gulf is probably your best bet (the other actions the US has been involved in since aren't as large-scale, and hence have a different response)

Also, the Zero was not superior to the American planes by 1943. Properly flown, the P-38 scored some amazing successes against the Zero, and when the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were deployed, they pretty much had the Zero in every way shape and form, especially in firepower and durability. There is no way the Zero could maintain a 4-1 kill ratio, sorry, not happening. At the beginning, versus the decidedly inferior F4F Wildcat? Yes. By the time the F6F and F4U hit their stride? Hell no. Not only was the Zero inferior, they were outnumbered pretty damn fast. Both of those factors contribute to indicate they == losing badly.

Take VF-17, one of the first squadrons in the Pacific to carry the F4U Corsair. Their kill ratio was something along the lines of eleven to one. They were the top guns of their day, but they weren't alone.

Another nitpick: If I remember right, the German Tiger tank carried the 88, and an 88 could most definitely punch a hole in a T-72 or M1A1. The thing is, they'd have to get the first shot in, because the M1A1's aiming system gives them a one-shot hit probability somewhere in the 90s, I believe.
That plus it'd be far more likely for a roving F-16 to put a Maverick into that Tiger than the Tiger getting a shot off at an M1A1.

__________________
[url="http://www.dopefish.com"]swim...swim...hungry...[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Leeds, Northern England
Posts: 20

Hi Alphakiller and Icefire. No, don't worry, please nitpick and assault my opinions. It is what all historians do to each other anyway. Like on Baddiel & Newman's comedy insulting 'History Today'.

True, when it comes to conflicts that are under the thresh-hold of total war the US are very protective of their troops. They have the 'combined arms' doctrine down so well that on an open battlefield their troops are far safer than under the air cover of any other force. Their medical corps are probably the best in the world and the general's always try to follow a route that will avoid a bloodbath.

However, I'm talking about total war. In WWI American losses were very high. This was largely due to inexperience in trench fighting, which is ironic really since the US civil war introduced it to the world. However, sheer numbers and the high morale of the US troops overwhelmed the Germans who were starving from the blockade. It is said that when the Germans committed successful counter-attacks against the US and recaptured trenches in WWI, they came across stacks of tinned food and even fresh food, wine and desserts. This made mass surrenders shortly after such discoveries common. I digress however.

In WWII US casualties were hideous. Although their leaders at the lower levels, and captains and the like would try their best to portect their troops, the US generals knew that many times the only way to take an objective is to attack in waves and waves of soldiers until the defences are worn down and the place captured. Air cover can only achieve so much in densly wooded areas, or hedgerow country, or in the dreaded urban battles. They cannot always find their targets, and in bombing cities make defense easier. (See Stalingrad as to how it was turned into a fortress by the German bombing) Barely any tanks were actually destroyed in Kosovo by the US airforce because they were carefully hidden, despite reports from NATO. Unfortunately to beat the German's a general had to become hardened to their troops losses. I was wrong in naming it 'casual', very few Generals were likely to be apathetic when it came to the cost, but they would not let loss projections or bloody repelled attacks prevent them from launching fresh ones. The US doctrine was essentially to overwhelm the enemy, as they had the more men. In equal numbers the US could not usually defeat German troops as the Germans were, well, better at tactics and had bigger guns. The English on the other hand were very careful with their troops and committed to battle reluctantly. This was because they had virtually no well trained and hardened troops left, and precious few new ones. Do you know the survival rate of professional troops who fought from the start on the English side? Zero percent. That was why I got annoyed with that line in Saving Private Ryan about the British. We didn't actually have that many troops to do the job quickly, and it was hedgerow country... which is the hardest to crack. (I far preferred the excellent film Thin Red Line, which was a more accurate portrayal of war)
The US had swarms of men. They could afford to lose them. They only quavered when they faced invading Japan, for which they employed a John Sheridan solution, averting a total bloodbath.


Icefire, you are right in the last line. The last half year of the war, the US ripped apart any Japanese fighter that entered the air. Up to 1945 however it was very difficult. Although tactics can change for the better and new planes brought in (and these did make a difference, though not immediately) the main deciding feature of a plane of more or less equal tech is the pilot. The US until 1945 wasn't able to keep their new pilots alive long enough to become experienced. A similar thing happened in WWI with the Royal Flying Corps. The Germans massacred us because we could only throw up barely trained men. However, such a constant flow of fresh men and fighters gradually wore down the Japanese. The new planes WERE superior to the Zero, but the pilots could not use them effectively enough until 1945 to make too much of a difference. As for the kill rates the US exagerrated them because they were far too depressing for the folks back home, somehow it has become official histoy. Fair enough, really. War IS hell. Oddly enough though, they did not exagerate on the front against the Germans, though they did a hell of a lot better and were equal to their pilots.

Please don't think I'm knocking the US forces. Bradley and Patton were the two best generals of WWII. No one came close to the US skill in combined operations. Medical corps unequaled. Brave troops. Good supplies. Oh, and saved Europe. (Russia may have been able to do it, but not for another five years, by then it would have been bye bye Britain, and they might have got the bomb by then as well) I am still grateful, though it WAS your war as well, no matter what that (expletive deleted) Senator Kennedy might have said. ("Why can't the UK just surrender to Germany? Hitler may then be satisfied and call off world-domination." Yeah, right, Mr Kennedy. Not his relative JFK, by the by) I just think that you are underestimating the US capability of suffering heavy casualties when there is a clear objective and it is obvious who the bad guys are and where they are. If there is another huge conventional war (we won't survive the other kind) the US would be the same again. In a total war in B5 they would do the same.

Unless the Tiger was hidden in trees. The airforce still hasn't solved that problem. That's why they like desert war a bit more. As to a tiger destroying an M1A1... hmm, not sure, might take two hits. Chobbam armour and all. In a big engagement there would be M1A1 loses. Tigers were slow. On an open field the M1A1 could outmaneuvre them. Did you hear, by the way, that the US has found that the M1A1 has difficulty operating on soft ground like fields and country? Apparently they are just too heavy to fight effectively on such terrain. They way over 70 tons or something after all. There is a crisis in the US army at the moment as they have found that they have been concentrating almost solely on the airforce and tank corps. They don't actually have enough infantry support for all these tanks anymore, and would have to send many of them in on their own. Which is of course, very dangerous. Also, they have found that they cannot deploy them quickly enough, as they cannot be airlifted due to weight. The Pentagon has revealed that if Sadam had attacked the US forces in Saudi Arabia at the start of the war it would have been a massacre, as the tanks had not arrived and would not do so for weeks. The US infantry had no anti-tank weapons either, they would not be able to fight back effectively. However, Sadam waited for the US tanks to arrive, preferring defence. At which point it was a forgone conclusion who would win. The cretin.

P.S: Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut is the best book on the horrors of war.
P.P.S: I know that this is naive, but, why can't people just get along, on Earth and in the B5 realm. Eh?

__________________
"If you can keep your head whilst all around you lose...
Ugh! Spilt my ink!
Agh! Ink on my hands!
Eek! Ink on my shirt!
Agh! My only hope! The window!
....
AIEEEEE!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Leeds, Northern England
Posts: 20

Hi Alphakiller and Icefire. No, don't worry, please nitpick and assault my opinions. It is what all historians do to each other anyway. Like on Baddiel & Newman's comedy insulting 'History Today'.

True, when it comes to conflicts that are under the thresh-hold of total war the US are very protective of their troops. They have the 'combined arms' doctrine down so well that on an open battlefield their troops are far safer than under the air cover of any other force. Their medical corps are probably the best in the world and the general's always try to follow a route that will avoid a bloodbath.

However, I'm talking about total war. In WWI American losses were very high. This was largely due to inexperience in trench fighting, which is ironic really since the US civil war introduced it to the world. However, sheer numbers and the high morale of the US troops overwhelmed the Germans who were starving from the blockade. It is said that when the Germans committed successful counter-attacks against the US and recaptured trenches in WWI, they came across stacks of tinned food and even fresh food, wine and desserts. This made mass surrenders shortly after such discoveries common. I digress however.

In WWII US casualties were hideous. Although their leaders at the lower levels, and captains and the like would try their best to portect their troops, the US generals knew that many times the only way to take an objective is to attack in waves and waves of soldiers until the defences are worn down and the place captured. Air cover can only achieve so much in densly wooded areas, or hedgerow country, or in the dreaded urban battles. They cannot always find their targets, and in bombing cities make defense easier. (See Stalingrad as to how it was turned into a fortress by the German bombing) Barely any tanks were actually destroyed in Kosovo by the US airforce because they were carefully hidden, despite reports from NATO. Unfortunately to beat the German's a general had to become hardened to their troops losses. I was wrong in naming it 'casual', very few Generals were likely to be apathetic when it came to the cost, but they would not let loss projections or bloody repelled attacks prevent them from launching fresh ones. The US doctrine was essentially to overwhelm the enemy, as they had the more men. In equal numbers the US could not usually defeat German troops as the Germans were, well, better at tactics and had bigger guns. The English on the other hand were very careful with their troops and committed to battle reluctantly. This was because they had virtually no well trained and hardened troops left, and precious few new ones. Do you know the survival rate of professional troops who fought from the start on the English side? Zero percent. That was why I got annoyed with that line in Saving Private Ryan about the British. We didn't actually have that many troops to do the job quickly, and it was hedgerow country... which is the hardest to crack. (I far preferred the excellent film Thin Red Line, which was a more accurate portrayal of war)
The US had swarms of men. They could afford to lose them. They only quavered when they faced invading Japan, for which they employed a John Sheridan solution, averting a total bloodbath.


Icefire, you are right in the last line. The last half year of the war, the US ripped apart any Japanese fighter that entered the air. Up to 1945 however it was very difficult. Although tactics can change for the better and new planes brought in (and these did make a difference, though not immediately) the main deciding feature of a plane of more or less equal tech is the pilot. The US until 1945 wasn't able to keep their new pilots alive long enough to become experienced. A similar thing happened in WWI with the Royal Flying Corps. The Germans massacred us because we could only throw up barely trained men. However, such a constant flow of fresh men and fighters gradually wore down the Japanese. The new planes WERE superior to the Zero, but the pilots could not use them effectively enough until 1945 to make too much of a difference. As for the kill rates the US exagerrated them because they were far too depressing for the folks back home, somehow it has become official histoy. Fair enough, really. War IS hell. Oddly enough though, they did not exagerate on the front against the Germans, though they did a hell of a lot better and were equal to their pilots.

Please don't think I'm knocking the US forces. Bradley and Patton were the two best generals of WWII. No one came close to the US skill in combined operations. Medical corps unequaled. Brave troops. Good supplies. Oh, and saved Europe. (Russia may have been able to do it, but not for another five years, by then it would have been bye bye Britain, and they might have got the bomb by then as well) I am still grateful, though it WAS your war as well, no matter what that (expletive deleted) Senator Kennedy might have said. ("Why can't the UK just surrender to Germany? Hitler may then be satisfied and call off world-domination." Yeah, right, Mr Kennedy. Not his relative JFK, by the by) I just think that you are underestimating the US capability of suffering heavy casualties when there is a clear objective and it is obvious who the bad guys are and where they are. If there is another huge conventional war (we won't survive the other kind) the US would be the same again. In a total war in B5 they would do the same.

Unless the Tiger was hidden in trees. The airforce still hasn't solved that problem. That's why they like desert war a bit more. As to a tiger destroying an M1A1... hmm, not sure, might take two hits. Chobbam armour and all. In a big engagement there would be M1A1 loses. Tigers were slow. On an open field the M1A1 could outmaneuvre them. Did you hear, by the way, that the US has found that the M1A1 has difficulty operating on soft ground like fields and country? Apparently they are just too heavy to fight effectively on such terrain. They way over 70 tons or something after all. There is a crisis in the US army at the moment as they have found that they have been concentrating almost solely on the airforce and tank corps. They don't actually have enough infantry support for all these tanks anymore, and would have to send many of them in on their own. Which is of course, very dangerous. Also, they have found that they cannot deploy them quickly enough, as they cannot be airlifted due to weight. The Pentagon has revealed that if Sadam had attacked the US forces in Saudi Arabia at the start of the war it would have been a massacre, as the tanks had not arrived and would not do so for weeks. The US infantry had no anti-tank weapons either, they would not be able to fight back effectively. However, Sadam waited for the US tanks to arrive, preferring defence. At which point it was a forgone conclusion who would win. The cretin.

P.S: Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut is the best book on the horrors of war.
P.P.S: I know that this is naive, but, why can't people just get along, on Earth and in the B5 realm. Eh?

__________________
"If you can keep your head whilst all around you lose...
Ugh! Spilt my ink!
Agh! Ink on my hands!
Eek! Ink on my shirt!
Agh! My only hope! The window!
....
AIEEEEE!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Transylvania, ROMANIA
Posts: 1040

now this is stupid topic
How the hell will the F16 find a hidden tank to fire that maverick thing?
Now from where did ugot that conclusion that US won by them self WW2?
***this mean that u don't know squat about ww2..***
british had more experienced troups than US..
not to mention Russian meat grinder..that was eating veterans german divisions one after other ..
italian...get serious...they attacked Greece and failed like looser they are..

about tiger tank punchig a hole in M1A1..possible..does someof you know the Krupp 88 PAK parameters? like muzzle velocity , armor penetration, kynetic energy of the projectile..

is supect some people still belive that M1A1 is the best tank in the world...witch is not.

__________________
eng Horatiu Popovici

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged