Search results for query: *

Danath said:

SKyguard? Useless waste of certs.
AA Base Turrets? 2 of them can't kill a Liberator, they overheat before that. In fact, they are so innacurate you can't hit a Liberator flying at nearly max altitude, while it can hit you. Of course, don't even try hitting a fighter not coming at you in a straight route. Heavies and tanks are going to attack you too.
AA Max? Extremely expensive, 2 of them to kill a fighter with a noob pilot, anyone else will fly away, still need another engi and a sunderer. So... like double players and resources.
Use a fighter to fight their aircraft? Good luck, you need to empty your gun about 4 times just to a kill another fighter (and he can't dodge ****). A damn fighter has more armor than a lighting.

/rant

Click to expand...

Get 4 AA MAXs together and make your area a no-fly zone.  Bursters have great synergy with other bursters in a way that air doesn't have.  AA Base turrets and skyguards need major buffs, I agree.  IMO, turrets (of all types) should be much, much more powerful, to the point where taking them down is a Big Deal in terms of attacking a base.  Like taking down a mini-generator. They need major buffs across the board, especially to their health.  (If possible, I'd like them to have the same amount of health in relation to c4, just to encourage people to play LA and sneak around).

And, think of when you finally do manage to c4 (or hack and kill the operator) the turrets and your allied Libs can surge in and clean everything up.  It'd be glorious. 

Danath said:

Merentha said:

and equipping them makes you invisible to anyone at, near, or spawning from a Sunderer.

Click to expand...

What?

Click to expand...

Dunno, seems that way, given how I have not yet failed to blow up a Sunderer with them if I get within 50m first. 

Punishment said:

300 certs down, only 200 more to go for my second C4.

Then i can actually kill a entire vehicle by myself.

Click to expand...

You could have just bought AT mines.  Only a 0.5sec arming time, they persist after you die, two blow a Sundy no problem, they come with two right out of the box, and equipping them makes you invisible to anyone at, near, or spawning from a Sunderer. 

Night Ninja said:

Congrats!

I hope this appointment doesn't increase the number of grey hairs that you two have.

Click to expand...

Or lead to hair loss.  My goatee fell out after I got admin'd. 

mor2 said:

Kobrag said:

All faiths have an equal chance of being true/untrue if there are supernatural forces inside (or outside  ) of the universe.

Click to expand...

Btw, this can lead to a nice discussion about perception of reality. For example who are we to tell people with 'mental' problem, that what they see isnt true.

Click to expand...

I am, because solipsism is empirically and philosophically unsound.

Well, I was going to have a fun "surprise ****tards!"  tempban of the first person to post on the 1000th page in a way to discourage spam, but, well...

Seriously.  On topic.  Now. 

Why would they need to?  We only clean ourselves to avoid bacterial infection, which their suits handle, and for social convention, which their suits handle.  And because it feels nice to be clean, but if you spend a life doing it, I imagine you get used to it and it'd feel weird to not be. 

If evolution worked that way, sure!

And yes, Tali will totally be a space elf if that mask ever comes off.  She certainly won't be a space elf whose hair has likely fallen out from complete inexposure to sunlight, nasty, pasty gross skin from same, plus the amazing reek of someone who has never, ever showered and spends all her time in one completely enclosed set of clothing, often in stressful combat situations.  Because that's Bioware. 

Nodscouter said:

Yea, y'know, we haven't actually seen any Quarian underneath the suit yet. They might as well be a splinter human faction or something for all we know.

Click to expand...

With chickenfeet and two fingers.  Yes.  Splinter human faction. 

Archonsod said:

Dunno what would happen if you both tried to infinitely shrink and infinitely expand something at the same time but I'm betting the end result would involve explosions.

Click to expand...

I love physics. 

What are you trying to do?  Build muscle, build cardio, get toned, get in general shape, some combination of the above? 

Winterz said:

U.S. experts estimated that Turkey, while not a major recipient of gold from Germany during World War II, received as much as $10 to $15 million in gold, much of it probably for its chromite exports. After the War $3.4 million in Belgian monetary gold looted by Germany was traced to Turkey. In addition, two German banks with branches in Istanbul, the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank, took advantage of the high prices on the Turkish free gold market to sell looted gold provided by the Reichsbank in return for foreign currency, particularly Swiss francs.

Click to expand...

Turkey clearly was only "winning" by 1941, and it was Germany who made them win, it was just a matter of time before they left neutrality and joined the Axis....By 1941, all Allied attempts to make Turkey cease business with Germany, failed.

Click to expand...

If they didn't join in immediately, they certainly wouldn't have joined after Dec 1942, when Stalingrad finished.  Why should they join as a client state when they were making perfectly good money selling equipment to the Axis?

And, you'll note that Turkey declared war on Germany.  They certainly weren't so opposed to the British or Soviets that they didn't choose to side with the winners.  I see no reason to believe that they would have done anything differently without US intervention.  You've said that it must be the US.  Show me when or where Roosevelt gave sufficient concessions to the Turks that they opted not to side militarily with the Germans, declare war on the Soviets, and allow German military through their terrain.  Any time now. 

Now U.S. and Britain were the ones trying to make Turkey cease business with Germany, scratching the US, you'll have only Britain, and not only by mentioning all the lands Turkey had to give away to Britain but also because the british forces alone showed no threat against Germany in Europe mainland. Why would Turkey cease the great relations they had with Germany at some british empire request, which invaded them not 20 years from then?
Clearly, the awnser is in the US, even though their army was very undeveloped, United States were already a powerful country which Germany feared.

Click to expand...

Prove it.  Why would they?  Why would the Turkish throw in militarily with a country that had carried them to ruin (and prompted the aforementioned British invasion) just 20 years prior? 

As you can see, you still have no right to refute my theory.

Click to expand...

Hah!  You need to learn how debates work, mate.  Burden is on you to show what the US did to keep Turkey out, not go "well, there were two people on the Allied side trying to get them to join the Allies (even though Roosevelt wasn't, he favored Turkish neutrality) and so if you remove one, CLEARLY the other side balances it out."  Doesn't work like that.

How about we just leave it like this? This discussion getting too much "heavy" here.

Click to expand...

What, you don't like it when people ask for proof and sources? 

And what you all keep implying is that, thousands of american lives were loss to free Europe, and yet you are clearly saying that their losses in some continent, which they had no obligation to help, were insignificant?

Click to expand...

Oh no!  Not lives being lost in an insignificant manner!  Whatever will we do?  That is sort of what I am implying.  The US invasion of Normandy, or its military aid in the European theatre, was insignificant in the defeat of Hitler's Reich.  Did the American invasion forestall what may well have been the Soviet Union annexing all of Europe, sans the British Isles and (depending on how the treaty worked out) France and Spain?  Yes.  But that's not the US involvement in WWII. 

What did the US do, explicitly, to keep Turkey from not only allying with Germany, but to allow a German force through their lands and then to launch joint invasions with them?  And the US alone? 

Because, I don't know about you, but supplying large amounts of materials to Germany sounds an awful lot like bribery to me.  That doesn't exactly sound like a nation who's going to be okay with allowing more forces to march across their entire country than their standing army.

And yes, the Channel Islands would have been a waste of time.  Churchill didn't give a **** about the plight of his citizens.  Have you forgotten the Coventry bombing?  If they'd set up V2 sites, they would have been bombed out.  Or invaded.  Until then, they didn't matter one whit.

Oh good lord.  You are so uneducated on the topic you thought the Dardanelles was a land bridge.  What makes anything else you say even close to being considered?

Over half the German forces were committed to Barbarossa.  Over half.  Where are these other troops coming from?  What front?  What defense force?  Finally, you state that 200,000 troops could take the Turkish 172,000.  Yeah, they could probably win in a straight fight, but it isn't one. You're suggesting that an evenly numbered force, who's specialty is rapid, armored attack with air support at key weaknesses in lines, attacking either via amphibious landing (with the landing craft they don't have) or across narrow, supremely defended bridges (including one right at the capital) will not only sweep through the defenses, but do so with so few casualties that they will continue to run wild throughout the entire length of Turkey and then be able to attack the Caucasus in force.  All before Barbarossa, which was one of the fastest invasion forces in history, gets to Stalingrad. 

Are you serious?    What are you, six years old and drawing lines on a map going  "whooosh!  bang bang bang" and sweeping aside Lego divisions with your arm?"

Finally, did you ever consider that maybe the British ignored the Channel islands because amphibious landings are typically horrible, horrible wastes of time, energy, and manpower?  No, clearly, the country that took 2 D-Day landings and kept the Germans from overrunning North Africa couldn't take the Channel Islands.  Yes, that makes more sense. One of the greatest achievements of the US, in WWII was actually performing somewhat viable amphibious assaults in the Pacific.  Somewhat.  Oh, and contributing to successful airborne infantry strategies and tactics.  And carrier-dominated fleets.  That was relatively new, though the Japanese arguably did that first.  And heavy strategic bombing raids and the atomic weaponry.  Note how all of these are potential new tactics, most of them associated with the Pacific War.

Winterz said:

You are forgetting the Dardanelles Cross and other land crossings to the asian part of turkey.
It was enough for a strong german army to pass without even seing sea.

Click to expand...

The Dardanelles Strait is a body of water.  Not a land crossing.  You still have to CROSS WATER.  There is no land bridge, through Turkey, to Asia.  You have to cross at either the Bosporus or Dardanelles, and both are straits.  Straits are waterways.  Where is this mythical land crossing?

The north if Anatolia has same terrain than most balcans...and it's infrastructure was also not much different then Greece(except for the cities).
Look at the distancy....from Caucasus(through northern turkey) to Greece its way less far then from Germany to Russia(supply lines).
If the germans managed to take Caucasus so quickly there wouldn't have been any Stalingrad.

Click to expand...

If the Germans managed to take a hostile mountain territory quickly.  The fact that you think this remotely possible just makes me want to hit you. 

The Caucasus was very defended by the time the germans got there since Poland. They had enough time to entrench and fortify.
If the germans took Armenia and then moved north (together with german main forces moving from west) the soviets would loose completly domain over the Black Sea and their fleet there would be ****ed. The only naval part of the Black Sea that Germany never took was exactly that, Caucasus zone.

Click to expand...

Well, the only naval part they never too was the Causcasus and Turkey.  I wonder why.  And yes, if they somehow pulled mythical forces out of nowhere to be able to hit Poland, pressure the Russians, and invade the Causcasus, then yeah, they might have.  Where are these two million troops, support corps, and air support coming from?  The Western front?  That's unfeasible, for many reasons.  The Eastern front?  That blunts your push to Volga really fast, especially since the entire Blitzkrieg strategy relies on overwhelming force applied to one point in a line and then a breakthrough with envelopment.  You lose that all-powerful alpha strike, and you literally have nothing. 

My Turkish theory is exactly that... a theory, and a theory of what would happen if the americans hadn't been at war with Germany. Ofc I cannot see what the future would bring, but there's still much sense in what I'm saying and way more probability then this soviet theory(Hitler leaded the Axis and he would never let the USSR in).

Click to expand...

You still haven't shown how the US prevented the Turkish strategy.  Their military presence or even potential presence, was non-existent until after the eastern front had been decided.  Their political presence was minimal.  What, in detail, did the US do to keep this mythical Turkish plan from happening? 

You do know E. coli is one of the easiest bacteria to identify, right?  If they said they found E. coli digesting citrate, it wasn't because they looked at a tube and went "well, it must be E. coli!  NOTHING else could have gotten in there."

Sushiman said:

No hostility here, you just need to learn that we're all better than you at being awesome. Oh, if you keep digging, you'll die.

Click to expand...

There's plenty of hostility here.  Shut it. 

Love you too, Magorian.

I have a penis and self-identify as male.

Rhade:  "please delete ban" is completely and utterly worthless as a post.  If you didn't mind the ban, it wouldn't mean anything.  If you did mind it, you want it gone.  You said absolutely nothing at all, whatsoever, and then proceeded to whine about it when a completely symbolic measure was placed on you, indicating that you should probably not waste my time and space with completely pointless requests.  If you wish to appeal a ban, you can do it in a manner that actually might accomplish something, like explaining your actions and why you feel a ban was unwarranted.  If not, do as I told you in the first place and stop complaining. 

Winterz said:

British might have defeated the germans in Africa, Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain or Kriegsmarine(which was never more then a few powerful battleships and submarines).. but they still wouldn't be able to invade europe by themselves.

Click to expand...

And?  They didn't need to.  The Russians had that under control.  They had already won at Kursk before the US presented a credible threat.  How is this hard to understand?

You are kidding right? Operation Barbarrossa took only 3 millions of german soldiers. Their total manpower by then was of 7 million.

Click to expand...

Do you know how massive a commitment that actually is?  Almost half of the army was committed to the Eastern Front, in one operation.  That's ignoring the troops remaining in garrison duty in the areas they so quickly occupied.  That's ignoring the military divisions required to move the massive amounts of fuel a blitzkrieging army needs.  You cannot leave conquered areas unoccupied.  You cannot leave a western coastline unoccupied, especially since France's factories are critical to your production.  You can't move your Afrika Korps, because you need the oil and the Suez. 

You do understand that having 7m soldiers does not mean that 7m combat ready forces can be located in one place, right?  Committing nearly half of your total military forces at that time is a massive commitment. 

Seriously, why would the Germans be afraid of a military-industrial complex that was just gearing up? 

Click to expand...

Why would the Germans be afraid of USSR when their military failed in pretty all aspects? That kind of "inferior" discrimination was what ****ed them when the soviets managed to mobilize so quickly. Who would have guess?!

Click to expand...

The Soviets didn't mobilize quickly.  And, their military didn't fail in all aspects.  Their tanks were arguably far superior, in terms of cost-efficiency, than Panzer divisions.  Their infantry tactics were arguably superior, though their training was necessarily cut short.  Their airforce was an effective counter to the Luftwaffe.  The German plan actually almost worked.  There is also a major difference between knowing the state of an economy and production system (which has certain limitations that cannot be exceeded short of major improvements in technology)  and an undefined assumption that the enemy will surrender quickly.  One is based on fact (a factory can only produce so much) and the other is an estimation.  Further, before the battle of the Atlantic was effectively over (in May 1943), even a fully functional military production facility still cannot get its equipment to Europe.  The Germans had time and knew it. 

Turks may have changed from their Ottoman times but they had good relations with Germany and they were still no fond to the soviets.

Click to expand...

No, they had neutral relations with Germany.  The same that the US and UK did. 

The US could do nothing before 1943 in Europe, short of bombing.  This was known by literally everyone.  So, if the Germans lost to the Russians, they did not lose because a US threat kept some forces from the Eastern front.  Likewise, the Germans lost the battles in North Africa to the British, again without US assistance.  These two defeats were well before the US was even capable of presenting a credible threat to the German command.  The Germans lost to the UK (in North Africa) and Soviets before the US was even presenting a threat.  What about this is hard to understand?

There was no threat in the Atlantic from the US until 1943 at the earliest.  The US army was, at that time, minuscule compared to every European power, and also isolated on the wrong side of the Atlantic.  Since the Atlantic crossing weren't effectively secured until May 1943, and the US was not shipping troops in large numbers until around that time anyhow, there was no American threat. 

Seriously, why would the Germans be afraid of a military-industrial complex that was just gearing up? 

Winterz said:

Because Turkey... thanks to Roosevelt intervention (asslicking) decided not to join the Axis.
I have no doubt that without Allies political influence, the Turks would have joined up with Germany like in WW1.

Click to expand...

Ah, so now an army that had been ludicrously over-estimated in the First World War will be influential in the Second.  Especially since said country had actually undergone a massive change in government since then?  Or did you forget that they switched from being the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey in that time?  A movement which was founded on strongly nationalist and independent impulses?  They weren't switching sides.  They were firmly neutral in that conflict, and would have been without US interference.  The UK was pressuring them to join the allies (to protect the "gateway to India" and their oilfields in north Africa) and the Germans wanted them to join the Axis.  Roosevelt, incidentally, supported their neutral stance.

Are you going to tell me that Switzerland would have been an Axis state without US interference as well?

Winterz said:

Lol, you as a Finnish(don't they teach history in school, kid?) should know better that you would be the first ones to be invaded by the soviets.

Click to expand...

  I love, love how you talk as if the Soviets invading Finland was a hypothetical scenario.  You do know that Finland was invaded by the Soviets, right?  For quite some time, too. 

As for the American and British presence on the Western Front being critical to the Soviets' success, the Sovs were already well into Poland before the invasion of Normandy happened.  D-Day was June 44.  The Battle of Kursk was finished 11 months prior.  Stalingrad had been won approximately six months before that.  And you are asserting that the Normandy invasion, which wasn't to come for another year, was critical to the success of the Russians?  The US troops, at that time, were invading Italy, not France, and the Germans redirected comparatively few troops to Italy.  Further, a good portion of the troops stationed in France would not have been able to be diverted, as the French Resistance was actually posing a fairly credible threat to the Germans at the time.  While the FFI had lost some fairly important battles, they were still able to liberate Corsica in '43 and the Nazis were never aware of just how tenuous the FFI's existence was.  The Germans never would have left France abandoned.  Even if they had wanted to, they couldn't.  You can only get so much food, oil, and ammo to one location at a time.  Adding 7m to the Eastern front was going to add logistical nightmares to a corps already plagued with same.  Troops need support and supply lines, which do not always have the ability to swell forever. 

Your idea that without D-Day, the Germans could have invaded Turkey and turned a flank through the Caucasus is simply bizarre. First, the Caucasus are incredibly mountainous, not something rapidly moving tank columns do particularly well with.  Second, the British, as well as Afghani irregulars, remained in Afghanistan at the time, well able to flank the possible flank.  Third, the British and other Allied forces (conspicuously devoid of US assistance) had won at El Alamein in the late fall of 1942, giving two decent starting points for a potential invasion of Turkey should it be necessary. 

A year before D-Day, both the British and Soviets had beaten the Nazis on their own terms.  The Blitzkrieg had been defeated on two fronts, Middle-Eastern oil had been secured, the Battles of the Atlantic and Britain had been won, and the Allies were counterattacking on all fronts.

Now, that is not to say that the US was completely worthless.  Financial assistance and materiel support were actually very important to the success of both the Soviets and the UK.  The strategic bombing of German and French factories, almost entirely performed by the US superbombers, also contributed to a major drain on Germany's finances and production capabilities.  However, this did not start until mid 1942, so had no appreciable affect on the Eastern Front. 

Do I think the US was entirely worthless?  No.  However, their main contribution to the war in Europe was to supply arms to the Russians and the UK.  When they did enter the war in a practical, military manner, they largely served to hasten the already occurring demise of the Nazi regime. 

And, as pointed out, set the stage for a very different antebellum period, but that is neither here nor there.