RE: Name This...(155)

RE: Name This...(155) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Clipper1968 -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 12:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kaleun quote: Unfortunately for the Royal Navy these Exocet missiles were quite deadly... Not deadly enough[;)] otherwise they would be called the Malvinas! You are correct[;)] and fortunately for the Royal Navy only 5 aircraft Super Etendard carrying those missiles over 15 ordered by the Argentina Navy were effectively delivered when hostilities have started otherwise RN would probably have lost much more ships... IIRC "FALKLANDS: The Empire Strikes Back" was the title of an article I read at that time in Newsweek in 1982.[:D]

DrewMatrix -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 12:16:27 AM)
One thing to remember about the Falklands war while playing this game is that the RN _did_ lose ships. This naval warfare stuff is necessarily gruesome attrition. You have to expect losses.

Lex Talionis -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 2:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleBuck As for you being Cannon fodder, I don't understand. The cannon fodder was a cheap shot that I retract.[&o][&o] quote: ORIGINAL: UncleBuck I thought that we supported you and you us, and sicne you are good fighters we don't coddle you but treat you as equals. Now owing to your size and such we normally do not ask you to be the Vangaurd but do ask you to take vital and tough positions like Basra recently. I agree 100%. We're not shy of our responsibilities and you can rely on us. If it wasn't for all the do gooders we have in the UK we'd be able to contribute more armed forces to support our Allies. As it is its a fight to keep our armed forces at all with all the cut backs. Our government has just committed the UK armed forces to more military responsibilities whilst giving its funding an increase lower that inflation. Its decided that the way to fund it is to cut back even more on personnel and equipment. We had over 2500 tanks for GW1, now we have about 250! quote: ORIGINAL: UncleBuck In fact I woudl accuse our governemnt of using our troops for fodder to ensure Allied casualties are very low, so we can keep our allies. I'm unable to comment, I'm assuming that this is in regards to other countries forces and not the UK's. We've never succumbed to terrorists changing our governments stance, and we've been living with terrorism on our soil for a good many years. Whereas the US goes for overwhelming forces, we go for the UNDERWHELMING approach.[:D] I understand that there's 120k US troops in Northern Iraq, whilst theres 14k UK troops in Southern Iraq. [:D]

Lex Talionis -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 2:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Beezle The US tried to look neutral (not wanting to be at war with a western hemisphere power) but gave the UK an upgrade to their air to air missles (ie gave them a newer model) and quietly fed lots of satellite data to the UK (while the Soviets fed satellite data to the Argentines and the French sold the the Argentines missles). Yep, the brand new just off the production line Sidewinder air-to-air missile. It was even delivered to the taskforce whilst it was enroute to the Falklands. President Raegan went even further than that; its not well documented but he was so concerned that we'd have our heads handed to us on a plate because of our 2 small ASW carriers protecting the fleet that he offered to "lend" us one of your super carriers. He was a great man and a great friend to our country thats never been forgotten by our military![&o]

UncleBuck -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 5:45:30 PM)
Well i am talkign about the way we ar enot Going into to Fallujah, or Najaf. We have the FOrce as you pointed out, but we will instead take casualties so that we do nt get world opinon against us. hat bothers me is the argument that if we do somehting that eh Arab Street will hate us. I just want to know how that is a change from the way it is now. The 120K we have in the north(I think it is less than that now) is to secure the North, and support Afganistan. Also many of the troops we have in Iraq now are not Combat troops. Many are Sea Bee Battalions, Civil Affairs units etc. We do have a large number of Combat forces there but probably about 50/50 where a year ago it was 80/20. UB

Lex Talionis -> RE: Name This...(155) (9/1/2004 11:51:07 PM)
Hi UB I completely agree with your thoughts on Fallujah and Najaf. The alliance and especially the US as the leading partners, are on to a loser whatever happens; and all through good intentions. Edit: Under Saddams regime they wouldn't have tried to seize power as they'd have been mercilessly put down. The irony is that freeing them from a tyrannical regime has allowed them to try this.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875